












jest | A 
SATE ee 


Pics hae Rae hd peau aye) ahr : ; { ! city eee prick sisaiyehes anes rere sinnsay ey etd Se 
ARO Sie LG TAA OTM EAC et OT AGU eer te aS ee pot camera aes 
ay AWA i “i $ ( ut ie te sae z f bl i fiw: 4 a8) aes Pee . Hae 
f y z : 
a f pHa atc nit 















) ‘ ; 
Heese 








se *f 
ian weg 











pana 
stad hae a 


By RUA NE 









Ve pe dans 
‘ asineete 







1 Pits he 
eh 
” Pee cis a His Neat tity 











1-450 94F 


¥, $ 
yn bane OBE 
MS ‘ 


i i ‘ 

é Le Sa 

Rim a 
My 









is 
Sec ubire sib. 











here i kt 
' i “4044 
EMAL AAO es 
! She 





awit 
+4 


Rie ayn 
A a 
ht eat 4 Bu 










ui vie 
vy ul lp i a 











Ae OULU RAD 
ak TSA Mott 3 hee 
ft ? 









i v4 
Wag Fda Cae 
1 IE Ge 





: Hoh uh a 

sans 4 
fed hi 
is af 


Me liter 


Ase tse 


























ME fae Bs RRL 
oe tein ae eT 
Oia er es eee i 
ia jo0 Me 





ie 


i} sii 


















ei 
and i ness 
4 a |} ie mu aye 
ea tetinwed “ oy 2st sl iE Fi 
VOICI Ce nf eroren aioe bic 
ieee ae ; re oe ae ee 
‘; sake ath Bits Fh eae 












: hr 
afte ais Ny ( 
ae oe widy 

‘ ae ath 


it on 














{ 
TANS 


Cae ay 












(eater! 
Nebaetocte thi ie 
LAA ald 


LEE A eR * 
ore ey 
f i 


Nt 
‘ 

















tails 


gta 








lately ni ae Baa 
oe i Ke ie Moe 
i ae 


PPE orm sie 













alt 
oo 
ui pe ae ie mu 


43 





wr aye 
Wie: 















ahs 
oe i 











eas 


4 avg 
ei tat ality i Hatin i 
5. GM Lao oe se a 
asus er iers| uit 
fr. y 


Saree 


anh 
oe 
8 a 


ow ae 
sie KF 








ore res 



















ned 
as tw 
ee neat 

ett 





























eit 





Bn Hy i 
a 
td 






























« 
WPCdes ire hal 





i ty ; " ih iota Aa fi yo bas 
hens BSCE RA vee eis TAR ena aay a tN a 
a aie a i i, fee fen na tne 
PAN see e tes Cartel iant “a “a pap thai iat PL 
fale ia ty ides eta qin ian Apncaeaty 

A ; ia 3 a | Asean HEE Se Be nh ad a + 

F, 
fa ae 


ae 





mei 
aes 
He 


















ry ae ie 
es 






















































F CM Tea at iat ita A asia 
PN oe ai wv SN Ne lt iti : bath (tie Hate ae A ‘i 
| Fate dt aa Tera Uae 
iit : | i . es eit fd 
eR ak yy ¢ i Ai ae ne ile be ai A reread 
; ALE Rone ar one 1 
‘ ‘: : Kagieh us i Wes ih fe 
2 


Thy 1 te “ ree wer 
Zi 
a8 


bab 
rywastns 









































ui ate cag Td ce oF i 
Laie Raa ee i ty iG i: alae 
Ue as re sl if} i Ven 
fi ath 4 2 ; yay i ‘ : Fists fs a io 













































































































ry ey PRE 
{ Febcrresape bf ANNE 
ys Ub st) iy i Ree aaa e eas His Peted ae 
i " vets Tica it oy 
oy ‘ ‘ mts Ciaai 
; J it Pe i My 
‘ : fon WT 
‘ ’ Thiehed 
‘ t 
4 Hi 
Sed qt att ee i tba ci 
of Was haa e Bi we iy 
, HCE it ide ee alia ea 
et oy 2 HR, BLE ALA 
seve Bs ah Hee ; eee 
es Se aihs Fao ita + ads 
pant, , i j thtallie: nest a} 
uc ita el age tH rt hal 



















14 it ira) ali ‘Ast 


Ay & 
it Be naire 




















































































































: ; ; Vek: te 
2 Niietant te HY i shits ie 
] Pa LAE aio Sea eines 
' ae brat sr i bat 
Rahairdsa } Hie iB a 
taf job nt shai 
: oe oh Rtn? bari seal ae 
} ’ ae ae “io aii ge es 
| At Hari iy ‘ ' Dynes 
} } ; Ay tat HOP tte Weeet latidad iy nea Ciao ai Ran ite 
" 1 Re We Hl ant be aah nit 
; ‘Ms bat , ry abi ial tains Haas YI 
' * 4 sinh ys borane bare tw rH fy 
Aeiueor rd sOr Ky ; ef 
, : rien a oe ayy a bss ae 
| : ata Herr tr Haan init shear 
if ps bbe bate rah Mat A tai 
i se fatslivpaip Ute 4 4202 
| Bake | wit tise ee 
‘ : ‘ ag a ' VM RTO oe 
wee! it igh te Parka iranian eaters 
i Nderane ' Vet ab obo p ies Naty } : sia i 
hy at 4 ; ; Bt ; iy 1 : 
Bat 3 “ : 6 Pite lene) Mays 
aa ee ' t ata ' 
+h i / . 4 , ' } 4 
: ' , ol ; 
i at iy iste Nests tril eat stal \ 
i . gy id . 
te ter ; Baal ent ate Ist ad be ts 
a . ‘ | tee sassibsiiiy eh ib 
hy ‘ : jitiey ett Pe Ny cous 
in: Pues | ba sels ae alsin aint 
Lic ye at i i yy Yh 4 ise pee iayly Sait nay 
atts Padet 
f ; btuae MACE ae ; A oe sie State ae 
ined rete iat oe 
; i ? te Tybee WTP Y rake 
f } : Nt Watinn cK ashy 
, * aa a fate ‘ y i ieee 





ns." “al = 


a — 





U Dy 
OF TELCUNS@ TS 


V9 3.728 3 
M&8e; 








u 
h 








Nis y 








af 


ui 
°F.¢ 


, ji 


ilies 


— ; 


Ay i 





THE 


INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN 


ot 


al 


a4 








“sout]OHR “HOM Aq SUIMEIp 894i doy “sks SUL{OO] ‘seInpuoy] ‘urdoy jo SUINYT F4L 






ne a a 


Seg : 

So a 
w —— See as 
aN ue A eERIGY “DE 











s 


aru = 
waeben 4s 
Sie 
<—e. 


at 


lec 3 —— : 
“—— =. — = at . eee 
OF ee eZ 
BeX wee S 


See ae 


— 


THE INSCRIPTIONS 
Be COIR AN 


e% ue ee 9 ¢ 2) ’ 
(NIVe RS) Y Ul buh itwee 
IL 19 LtYZU 


BY 


SYLVANUS GRISWOLD MORLEY 


ASSOCIATE OF THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON 

















PUBLISHED BY 
THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON 


WASHINGTON, 1920 


7  & | 
iS fn ic! : 
4 =) a 
poy . w = hb 
ja 
tT) 
' 
’ 
“+ 
oe 
= ( 





t 


CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON | 
PusticaTion No. 219 


=~ 


. 
CA 
4 


PRESS OF GIBSON BROTHERS, INC. Aa 


© e » 
WASHINGTON Y ~ a : 
ioe t > an 
Lis fet A 
% fi j 
Vien, Ln 
ey J . b , *v i a 
rT] ; - at a 
2 7; 
Pee is} * 
£4 fe sh 
, Shy ar" eer | 
y we - ; 
— ee. ) 


GOIN SAEED 
ee 


PREFACE. 


It is now just a decade since the writer first visited Copan and began 
collecting the data presented in this memoir, the hieroglyphic inscriptions 
at that site. As originally planned these were to have formed the first 
chapter of a work on the inscriptions of all the Maya cities, but shortly after 
his connection with the Carnegie Institution of Washington it became 
apparent that the inscriptions at Copan alone were sufficient in number to 
merit monographic treatment. 

Meanwhile the scope of the investigation had been broadening in other 
directions. The decipherment of the unknown hieroglyphs had been going 
forward during this period, slowly it is true, but none the less surely, and 
it had become possible to include much new material in the projected mem- 
oir. For example, when the writer first visited Copan in Igto, he had not 
yet identified the hieroglyph for the hotun, and the importance of that 5-year 
period as determining the dates upon which the Maya erected their monu- 
ments was hardly more than suspected, whereas it 1s now known to have 
been one of the most fundamental and far-reaching expressions of the Maya 
civilization. Again in 1910, the meaning of the Supplementary Series was 
still unknown, while today its interpretation as a lunar calendar embody- 
ing certain eclipse data may be accepted without reservation. 

Finally the fact that the Maya were the only people of the New World 
who developed a chronological system of sufficient accuracy to exactly 
measure really vast stretches of time, and who devised.a graphic system of 
sufficient flexibility to record the same, has made advisable an extended 
consideration of Maya history as a whole, and the inclusion in the ap- 
pendices of much more data than those presented by the inscriptions at 
Copan alone. While these inclusions have expanded this investigation 
far beyond the limits of the single chapter originally contemplated, they 
have at the same time made possible a more exhaustive treatment of the 
‘subject, and it is hoped that they will have materially increased the use- 
fulness of this volume in providing a standard cross-section of ancient 
American chronology to which all cultures contiguous to the Maya may 
ultimately be referred. 


In the preparation of this volume the writer has received much valuable 
assistance, and has everywhere encountered the fullest céoperation in the 
prosecution of his researches. He wishes to acknowledge especially his 
obligations to Dr. H. J. Spinden of the American Museum of Natural History, 
Mr. William Gates of Point Loma, California, and Dr. C. E. Guthe of Phillips 
Academy, Andover. To Dr. Spinden he is indebted for many suggestions 


Vv 


vi PREFACE. 


as to the art sequence at Copan, for a number of statements written ex- 
pressly for insertion here, analyzing the stylistic features of different monu- 
ments, and more largely for his fundamental contributions to the whole 
field of Maya Art, which have so greatly stimulated research in the cognate 
branch of Maya chronology, by making possible the approximate dating of 
partially destroyed texts by means of the stylistic criteria present. 

To Mr. William Gates thanks are due for the free use of his large col- 
lection of post-conquest Maya manuscripts and books, which in size as well 
as in importance has no equal; for permission to reproduce the full text of 
the original Galindo report on Copan, now published for the first time 
(Appendix XI); for several translations both from Spanish and Maya into 
English, notably Appendix V, and the important page 66 from the Chronicle 
of Oxkutzcab (Appendix II); and especially for his observations on the dis- 
tribution of the Maya linguistic stock (Appendix XII) and for his preparation 
of the Index. 

To Dr. Guthe appreciation should be expressed for his painstaking care 
in the verification of the many calculations and bibliographical references 
throughout this work, and for other assistance in its final stages. 

To the officials of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University, Mr. 
C. C. Willoughby, Director, and Dr. A. M. Tozzer, Curator of Middle Ameri- 
can Archeology and Ethnology, the writer finds himself greatly indebted 
for their generosity in placing at his disposition all the material in the 
Museum relating to Copan, and to Mr. S. J. Guernsey also of the Museum 
staff for his assistance in utilizing the same. Indeed no exhaustive study 
of the Copan inscriptions could have been completed without recourse to 
the rich collections in the Peabody Museum, not only of original sculptures 
and casts, but also of hundreds of early unpublished photographs, and 
the writer wishes to acknowledge the consideration which has made possible 
the inclusion here of this important new material. 

Dr. Fred. E. Wright, of the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie 
Institution of Washington, has kindly prepared a petrographic description 
of the material of the Copan monuments (Appendix I). 

Dr. W. H. Holmes, Head Curator of Anthropology at the United States 
National Museum, has graciously contributed one of his well-known archzo- 
logical panoramas, the drawing of Copan which forms the frontispiece of 
this volume; and Mr. John L. Ridgway, of the United States Geological 
Survey, has assisted greatly in preparing the illustrations for reproduction. 

Dr. E. L. Hewett and the Managing Committee of the School of Ameri- 
can Research have generously permitted the incorporation in this volume 
of the results of the writer’s first two visits to Copan in 1910 and 1912, which 
were made under the auspices of that organization. 

For assistance in special phases of this investigation thanks are due to 
Messrs. G. N. Collins, O. F. Cook, W. Popenoe, and Major E. A. Goldman of 
the United States Department of Agriculture, Dr. Ellsworth Huntington of 


PREFACE. Vil 


Yale University, Dr. R. K. Morley of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Dr. 
Charles Peabody of Phillips Academy, Andover, Professor Marshall Saville 
of the Museum of the American Indian, and Dr. J. W. Fewkes of the Bureau 
of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. 

In addition to the foregoing, the writer finds himself indebted for much 
practical help in Central America, to various officials of the United Fruit 
Company, without which the difficulties of actual field-work, traveling- 
facilities, living-quarters, labor, etc. would have been enormously increased. 
He is under especial obligation in this respect to Mr. G. M. Shaw, manager of 
the Guatemala division of the United Fruit Company, to Mr. Alfred Clark, 
general manager of the Ferrocarriles Unidos de Centro America, to Dr. 
N. P. MacPhail in charge of the Quirigua Hospital and to Mr. M. D. Lan- 
dry, superintendent of the Quirigua district. 

To Mr. Rafael Levy of L. Leon Lowe and Co. of Zacapa, Guatemala, 
“the Gateway of Copan,” thanks are also due for having, on numerous occa- 
sions, provided mule-trains for reaching Copan, no inconsiderable service in a 
land where all travel is by means of that faithful animal. 

Finally to his many friends at the village of Copan, Don Juan Ramon 
Cuevas, Don Rafael, Don Porfirio, and Don José Villamil, Don Clementino 
Lépez, Don Jacobo Madrid, Don Carlos Martinez and Dona Julia Zuniga 
-whose kindly help and unfailing courtesy have greatly facilitated the writer’s 
studies at the ruins, and particularly to Arnulfo Martinez, his youthful 
assistant at Copan, as well as to those many other small citizens of the 
village, whose nimble wits and sharp eyes have ferreted out hitherto unknown 
texts in various parts of the valley, his gratitude should also be expressed. 

The pleasant associations thus formed with the villagers during the past 
decade received more formal expression during the writer’s last visit to 
Copan in June 1919, when at the session of the cabildo for June 2 he was 
elected a citizen of the Municipality for which honor he is deeply appreciative. 


This volume treats primarily of the hieroglyphic inscriptions at the ruins 
of Copan in western Honduras, the southern metropolis of the Old Maya 
Empire. To the general reader, interested principally in the larger aspects 
of this investigation, such as the background of the research and the con- 
clusions reached, Chapters I and V are especially commended. Chapters 
II, III, and IV deal with the detailed examination of the different monu- 
ments and are more technical in nature. 

Special phases of the subject will be found in the appendices. In IV, 
V,and XI are early descriptions of Copan (1576, 1689, and 1834 respectively). 
In IJ, III, LX, and X, are tabular and other data relating to the Copan 
inscriptions and monuments; VI and VII contain descriptions of the Supple- 
mentary Series and the hotun respectively, subjects extensively treated in 
almost all of the Old Empire texts. 


Vill PREFACE. 


Particular attention is directed to Appendices II and VIII. The 
former deals with the correlation of Maya and Christian chronology and 
attempts to answer the oft-repeated query as to the actual age of the Maya 
civilization, and the latter is a concordance of all known monuments which 
mark the ends of successive 5-year periods in the Maya chronological epoch, 
in effect a table of the relative ages of the several cities and their monu- 
mental remains. ) 


SYLVANUS GRISWOLD MorLEY. 
CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON, 
A pril 6, 1920. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER PeEUTe TOR UCtiON: apie MMe ee a hotel oe iy Da peace oe 
DOcaAtonranc: chviLOnMiellinw. nara et. cr see. oe eos 
Description ofthe Stremy atari... sk ou cece sede. 
PLISEORVPOF LG C1LG peepee ee eRe, oo. dase Pane oe Sas 
History of the decipherment of the Maya hieroglyphic writing... . 
Peo Dem tiie: present anvestig ation con... es ok os ence oe ae soe: 
Le Hunts Cleat ienits Cie we hae eM RA. oe IO, at tes ce a gs. 
CHAPTER Die therscripmons Of the larly Period.. .0.,0%5% 03540. 0 ee es spe 
Seaprer, iil the mscnptions of the Middle Period... .........0.00.5.5.....- 
SsaPrer  1V. The inscriptions of the Great Period.................:.:001...-. 
CHAPTER er WL OMCIIStCIS AMER Ie eet et el Ao TSA ee 
Me teerarenin fattcOle eet ae ere Pie. oaks ves stow tana oe 
Probable function of the Maya monuments................... 
Miieroriein orsnemviaya ‘civilization ; 2. . ws... se ns eee 
History of Copan during the Old Empire..................... 
(itiverpcities Guane OulePanpire.< bso. e sles coe cee eS 
scat UN eM ICIN PEL Ge: c gat foe aa te Sc. ee nes ne hho ds 
APPENDIX I. A petrographic description of the material of the Copan monuments, 
Reenter ease WN 1OHtr gaat Men ere et ese el. 2 
Apprenpix II. The correlation of Maya and Christian chronology............... 
Appenpix III. The nomenclature of the Copan monuments. 
Appenpix IV. A description of the ruins of Copan, by Dic Garefa de Palsceen in 
Seer ema eeeerncen es Wee MMO RS Sy hn ew sir < diets a d's gees aware 
APPENDIX V. A description of the ruins of Copan, by Francisco Antonio Fuentes 
EP YAU NI LOL G Sy rw ate ee ts os oe ua do ae 
Berens | Vice t he pupplementary Series; - 0.6 Jnl. ca ce ee me cee eee 
ee my PC LUOELIN Se cere ee PR ore na Se ea ke eae a va aed eon 
Aprenpix VIII. List of monuments marking the hotun-endings during the Old 
HCH Ss sgt Sak GAR orca a a ee rel oe 
Aprenpix IX. The provenance and dates of the Copan monuments............. 
AppeNnpDIx X. List of day-signs and month-signs found in the Copan inscriptions.. 
AppENDIxX XI. A description of the ruins of Copan, by Juan Galindo, in 1834.... 
Appenpix XII. The distribution of the several branches of the Mayance linguistic 
PECs WN TITAN CIACES hy coerce an va Ce Sam ge Ol Rs b Ke bles oes 
are rer Ye eS ON, 7g owe cca ce Pe ee Ae a sy ds os ce 
re ETRY Bey Type ey. sy, aa Be eis 8 Bee ea ernie Peis wees ee Ree Re 


The engraving facing page 1 of this volume was redrawn from plate 8 of the section on 
Archeology of the Biologia-Centrali Americana by A. P. Maudslay. 


It represents the date 


6 Caban 10 Mol, the most important in the history of Copan, as recorded upon the step leading 
to the sanctuary of Temple 11. 


The engraving following the index is from the same publication (plate 94) and represents 


the death’s head on the front of Altar R. 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 
PLATES. 


Frontispiece. Ruins of Copan looking east, after the drawing by W. H. Holmes. 


I. 
2. 


OnI Aum & Ld 


\O 


Map of region occupied by the Maya civilization) 7) 2 oe ee 
a, Copan Valley looking west from Main Structure; b, modern village of Copan 

looking WeSt,,.5+ si occc.5 a 014 cf Mac found  guacet std ice plan ieae eee e n 
Map of Copan Valley showing location of Main Structure and outlying groups, , 
a, Main Structure looking east; b, Main Structure looking south.............. 
a, Main Structure looking southwest; b, Main Structure looking northwest...... 
Plan of Main Structure, showing location of associated monuments.......... 


. a, Great Plaza, looking east; b, Great Plaza looking northwest.............. 
. Inscriptions on Altars A’, Y; X,))’, 85 L’, and Vl oo ee 
; Inscriptions on Stela 18, 20, and 21,.and Altar 0" 960 
. Inscription on Stela 36.500 fa. yu Mae oie eee ie a 
. Inscription on Stelast 7 ..s4s. us scyssieuee eee ee ee 
. Inscription On Stela 16 jcc oiensts wise tees ane ete eee eer 
. Inscription ‘on Stela7 25 soso oe 5 ys a ee ee ce 
. Inscription on Stela Fo and associated altar J) atti ee 
. Inscriptions on Stela 10 and 13......... ee ees UO he nt 
. Inserrption on Stela‘19. 2 si... ce sis << + ous Oc) ase eget eee 
» Inseription: on Stel: V2 jasseis+cgpceke 2 deb «Fe je on os oi AT Seine nee en 
. Inscription on Stela:2 « « ocips/ec cece p-aucie ch & deal le male eee 
. Inscriptions on Stela:3 ANG oF sie edencccn 4s ooivmcnc ape ake 
. Inscriptions on West and East Altars of Stela sc. 14. pee 
. Inscription on Altar of Stela (1... .2:,. Yl youn eee ee 
. Inscriptions on Altars B’ and C’ and the Altars of Stele land 13.............. 
. Inscriptions on Altars H’ and 1". 2; <<. capers uie sts eee 
. Inscriptions in north gallery of Temple 18 and on Altars S, W, G’, F’, andQ’.... 
. Hieroglyphic Stairway before,and after excayation.,2°.,.54) J.-4004 sense 
. Dates, 10, 1, 15, 25, 26, and 27 from Hieroglyphic Stairway; and inscriptions on 


Hieroglyphic steps of Mound 2 and om AltariN@ea,. so es eee 


. Date:24 from Hierogly phic Stairway. «eevee ete 
. Inscriptions on Stelz M and 22, and on east jamb of north doorway of Temple 11; 


and the toad from the Shnne of the load... 7. oe ee ee eee 


. Inscriptions on jambs of north and south doorways of Temple 11............ 
. Inscription on Reviewing-stand in Western Court.................ss.--+-s 
. Inscription on step of doorway leading into sanctuary of Temple 21a.......... 
. Inscription on ‘Stela 8... . . 25. Ack tc ce 
. Ruins of Copan looking east, after the painting by Carlos Vierra.............. 


FACING 
PAGE. 





| 
1 
1 
| 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 


TEXT-FIGURES. 


. Death of the tlahtouani (ruler) Ahuitzotl and succession of Moctezuma II in the 


year 10 Tochtli (1502 A. D.) as represented in the Aztec hieroglyphic manuscripts 


. Dedication of the great teocalli (temple) of Huitzilipochtli, the Aztec God of War 


at Tenochtitlan (Mexico City).in the year 5 Tecpatl (1484 a. D.) ............. 


. Glyphs for natural phenomena (earthquakes, eclipses, comets, volcanic eruptions, 


and snow-storms) in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis........................ 


. Glyphs for the xihuitlmolpia or completion of the 52-year cycle in the Aztec 


Re er IC ALIANCCLIOT S94.) 0. ee I et ee Nae Fh 8d Kw tices wai 


. Diagram showing method of designating individual glyph-blocks.............. 
BEMMEEATION ON) Cf) Ol Putal, Or bn entre ek ke Ss in ale tse oe ee 
MR EtG NG tone Of telat oan eet UNA He ee ON sk Rn tal Lath ee ok 
BerMRetIpthaion front AOL back Ol mtela Oy 0 0405 os va ek fons obcule sn pee len.s 
. Inscription on front and right side of Stela 20 (Fragment 1).................... 
. Inscription on back and sides of Stela 20 (Fragments 2 and3).................. 
. Diagram showing best assemblage of Fragments 1, 2, and 3 of Stela20.......... 
. Sketch showing position of fragment of Stela 24 in the foundations of Stela 7..... 
Bester iti on: (ron at back OF DECLA ZA cache Sos us > m-.0 awe bie as fe he 
Pi enntion Ontront.\wack, alld ONemsiGe OF otela 2b A) 65.6 ou Sb wk ab ie worse oo 
(Poy ida Pein Rls Es Co bates Fs fs S07 oe 
. Parts of inscription on left slab of tablet in Temple of the Cross at Palenque. . 
. Inscriptions showing use of normal-form of tun-sign for zero.................. 
MNT HAY TMETEYCHATICY ORO (EIA 8s G..0) fi oi Ss cw, Eee fegieivie sso dd aan bu Hee a ahw en 
. North and south cross-section through Stela 7 and its foundations............ 
ue tiericnvomuriarments: ¥ ir0ms Group: 9. . 250.0 nd cee eee nsdn ee lcun Pe as 
ear CREP Or MEMOS Cueto) hee fe uae Ba dak \ 5 Sods cane Wit  adtdce wil nb elwie «ass 
. Sketch-map of Group g showing location of the monuments at Copan Village... . 
. Glyphs used in place of month-signs in Initial Series terminal dates............ 
. Map of the principal mound of Group 13 (Hacienda Grande).................. 
. Parts of inscription on Stela 19 and the associated altar...................... 
SeRMImeTAISCUiYeaty Back ili Bides- OF tela, 23 fs 8628 en oe adie 2 cease « wn Sn aches op 
MePeERC tial att Ore tela soci ee Whe A ater ate a Px <4 45.9 ate a dlabiaBod ee oe 
. Top of East Altar of Stela 5 showing fragments into which it is broken.......... 
minsctiption om Fragment W of East Altar of Stelas...<. 06... ce es 
. Supplementary Series from Temples of Cross and Foliated Cross at Palenque. . 
. Composite numerals made up of head-variant and bar-and-dot elements....... 
. Top of West Altar of Stela 5, showing fragments into which it is broken......... 
Bertonon side of Aitar y: of otelaGi7m sod. 20) oe oe en bd se ey dae wd 
. Two upper glyph-blocks of inscription on north side of StelaJ................ 
PURI TRSINE iawn na hy eee ee. s Clie yas cS « we fa,s glee ots 
Meeted Nimanuirile On vAaCk OL-Otela Bocce bcos on ots Phin be iy oe ve aes can ek 
. East and west cross-section through center of Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26 
. Dates 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 21 from the Hieroglyphic Stairway............ 
Mvieniusyartants oitite. aay-siom Lamat. fcc 665 cule vedi. Soda bee ea rece Le tlees 
mates 22 and 27 from the Hieroglyphic stairway.) 2.0.06. ce eee lee ene 
. Part of Date 26 (?) from the Hieroglyphic Stairway...............-.00 0000 ee 
Late Mtunscription ot pedestal ot otela ING i. ch ni. . ek ea Sa eee pews eee 
(Se SESE STARA SSP tgs UC ca ie SAR 2 Se oe re 
. Drawing showing assemblage of the several sections of Altar B’................ 
mer endstr ound. date on back of Altat DO") .G2 eee oo adr we Ooh d vos Deans 
. Design and inscription on front, back and sides of Altar W’................... 
Mivesiewvancmuccription oniback of Altar) tei. 6 «auc aa teal ee ee ees we es 
| spite Pape Doty eco rt | COO TEATS US Shc RE Ean a ar agra at 
Mm Occuctences of the date 6 Caban 10. Mol-at Copan... -c.0 cc cee ec cesta eee 


xl 


PAGE. 


XII TEXT-FIGURES. 


PAGE 
so. Occurrences of the great-ereat-cycle glypho.... 14. +a.. 0.040 347 
51. Insctiptions on 4, Fragment 203 0, Rrasmenti. i...) +... 5 ae ee 368 
52. Drawing of Altar O’ showing broken edges at top and bottom................. 371 
53. Plan of front: palleryeorLemple 18) a ee ee el ee eee 371 
c4. Partiof inscription omaitar (a age te eee ee eee 374 
sc. Part’of imscription on Altar: lege eee rey ene 376 

56. a, Part of inscription on peccary. skull from Tomb 1; b-e, early forms of the day- 
Sign Alas 2 2 ncaa ls sec ea nt ee eee een ee 379 

57. Map showing location of Copan and the principal cities of the southeastern Maya 
FEOMECIEE Soc. o 0, oee 4 bisa ye De on ache titan oie, ems ee 381 
58. Plan of the ruins of Rio Amanillo... . 2 i2.4)- cy pce ee 382 
59. Inscription on four sides of Altar 1 at Rio Amanlions 2.0 383 
60. Part of inscription on Altar’2 at Rio Amanilo., 2 oe, eee 384 
61. Plan of the:ruins of Los Higos...5...\ st. .4 ose es 384 
62. Inscription on back and sides of Stela 1 at Los Hipos, 0. 3 ee 385 
63. Inscription on front of; lustla Statuette,?-.-.0.y 403 
64. Map showing probable line of migration of the Maya into their historical habitat.. 404 
65. Inscription on the Leyden Plate.) te ee 4II 
66. Inscription’on Stela oat’ Uaxactun. 9) 7.57... ye ee 412 


67. Anthropomorphic figures of Archaic type: a, b, Copan; c, near Guatemala City 422 
68. Diagram showing chronologic distribution and frequency of the dated monuments 


at Copan. Siw ge bf o « ee seein 9 ea ce Oe es a ee 432 
69. Diagram showing periods of occupation of the principal Old Empire cities...... 433 
70. Diagram showing chronologic distribution and frequency of all dated monuments 
in ‘the Old. Empires ..d.. Oo... iva pe sc ps cle he esl ee eee eee 440 
71. Diagram showing supposed variation in rainfall in the Maya area from 500 
B.C. to 1000. AcD., after Huntingtoni., 5.15. .6 se. 450 
72, Page 66 from the Chronicle of Oxkutzcabs. 25)... 4... 24. ate 471 _ 
73. Indian painting, probably showing a katun-wheel, figured by Bishop Cogolludo : 
in his Historia de Yucathan (p-133)-.. 2+ + + - 2 ee a ee 472 
74. Inscription on capstone in outer chamber at north end of East Range of Monjas 
Quadrangle at Uxmals: 220022 ak SII 
75. Inscriptions on north sides of rings of Ball Court at Uxmal.................... 514 
76. Inscription on front of column in High Priest’s Grave at Chichen Itza.......... 518 
77. Part of inscription on capstone in small house near casa principal at Chichen Itza. 520 
78. Glyphs G, F and B of the Supplementary Series... . oe ee 542 | 
79. Glyphs A, C, D, E’and X of the Supplementary meries:- ee ee 553 
80. The head elements in Glyph C of the Supplementary Series.................... 560 
81. The hotun glyphe. vee. pecs he ee ee Eee eee ee ae 565 
82.. The lahuntun glyphosate es 566 
83. Map of the ruins of Piedras Negras. >. 2065. 352 569 
84. Map of the ruins:of Quirigua, 2.242 5. 2-5 ya 570 
85. Design and part of inscription on front of Stela 1 at Tuluum.................. re: 
86. Design and inscription on cliff at the Hunacab mouth of the Cave of Loltun.... 572 
87. Inscription on front of lintel in Temple of the Initial Series at Chichen Itza...... 572 
88. Parts of inscription on back of stela 1 at Dulin ee eee 574 
89. Design and part of inscription on front of Stela 1 at Ichmul.................. 574 
90. a, Design and part of inscription on front of Stela 9 at Mayapan; d, middle section 
of page 11 of the: Codex Peresianus . 4). 032-4) 2) oe ee 575 


91. Map showing distribution of the several branches of the Mayance linguistic stock 606 











CHAPTER I. 
INTRODUCTION. 
LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT. 


The ruins of Copan are situated in the valley of the Copan River, in the 
extreme western part of the Republic of Honduras, lat. 14° 51’ 30’’ N., long. 
89° 9’ W.,' at an elevation of about 2,000 feet (600 meters) above the sea- 
level.? (See plate 1.) At this point the river emerges from a narrow cafion 
and flows in a general westerly direction through an open valley, which is 
about 2.5 kilometers wide at the widest point and 13 kilometers long. The 
sides are formed by sharply rising hills, the higher ridges of which reach an 
altitude of 3,000 feet (900 meters). The bases of these are thickly over- 
grown with underbrush and low deciduous trees, which give way to a sparse 
growth of pine toward the summits. At the western end of the valley the 
hills close in again; the river enters another narrow canon, and, after some 
100 kilometers of wandering in a general westerly direction, turns north and 
empties into the Motagua River at Zacapa. There are many rapids through- 
out its course and it is unnavigable. The beautiful little valley thus formed 
is completely inclosed by steep ranges of mountains and may be approached 
only by rough and precipitous trails, which have effectually discouraged 
general travel in this direction. 

‘The region has been the scene of intense volcanic activity. There are 
several volcanic peaks or domes in the immediate vicinity of Copan, and 
every cut in the road to Zacapa discloses vast underlying deposits of volcanic 
origin, chiefly ash. Maudslay describes the native rock as a decomposed 
trachyte.’ It is, in fact, an andesitic tuff, with occasional small, broken 
quartz crystals and more rarely roughly spherical inclusions of a denser, 
harder rock, sometimes as large as a foot in diameter, which differ from the 
host only in being more indurated and containing more quartz. In some 
cases the latter have successfully defied all efforts of the ancient artisans to 
remove them, and they have been left embedded in the finished sculptures.* 





1Gordon, 1896, p. 1. Maudslay gives the latitude as N. 14° 50’ 30” (1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 14). Galindo 
in two places gives the latitude as N. 14° 45" and the longitude as W. 90° 52’ (1834; see Appendix XI, p. 595, and 
18354, pp. 549, 550) and as 14° 39’ and 91° a7" in a third place (18364, p. 76). Neither Gordon nor Maudslay 
gives the longitude. The longitude 89° 9’ W. is taken from the Hendges map’ of Guatemala published by the Pan 
American Union, and is only approximately correct. It is, however, far more accurate than either of Galindo’s 
readings, which would locate Copan more than 100 miles farther west, in Guatemala. 

Gordon, 1896, p. 1. Popenoe (19194, p. 126) gives the elevation as 1,900 feet (570 meters). Maudslay (1889- 
1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 11) gives 1,700 feet (518 meters). Meye (Schmidt, 1883) gives 550 meters, and Galindo 
(1836a, p. 76), 640 meters. Of these several readings, that of Popenoe is probably the most accurate, having been 
checked with the railroad elevation at Zacapa. 

3Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 33. See also Gordon, 1896, p. 29. 

4Stela D, 2, and 3, and Altars Gi and U are cases in point. In the case of Stela D there were originally two such 
inclusions, one of which was removed. ‘The other, however, was left in the finished monument, the artisans con- 
tenting themselves with breaking it off flush with the face of the stela. In the case of Stela 3 the inclusion was 
left untouched and the design crowded into the space around it. In Stela 2 the half of the inclusion left in 
the monument has been neatly turned to account in the design. (See pp. 140, 141.) In Altars Gi and U the 


inclusions protrude several inches. 
I 


2 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The material is not a lava flow or intrusion, but rather a volcanic mud 
composed of ash laid down in water, a true tuff. A petrographic descrip- 
tion, not only of the inclusions in Stele 3 and D and Altar U, but also of the 
material of the bodies of these monuments as well, by Dr. F. E. Wright, of the 
Geophysical Laboratory (Carnegie Institution) will be found in Appendix I. 

When Stephens, the American traveler and explorer, first visited Copan 
in 1839 the valley was buried in a dense tropical forest, the haunt of the 
monkey and jaguar.!. According to information gathered by Gordon from 
the oldest inhabitants of the small modern village of Copan, this forest was 
cut down some time during the sixties of the last century by colonists from 
Guatemala, who were attracted thither by the fertility of the region.2 These 
colonists and their successors completely cleared the valley, leaving only a 
small grove standing on the Acropolis at the Main Structure; and to-day all 
that remains of this once magnificent jungle are a few giant ceiba and cedar 
trees, whose lofty foliage spreads a grateful shade over the general desolation. 

The region was peculiarly adapted to intensive aboriginal occupation. 
The climate is salubrious for the tropics, the elevation being such as largely to 
eliminate the excessive humidity of the coast plain. “Toward the end of the 
dry season, particularly in April and May, the heat is intense in the middle 
of the day, but the mornings and evenings are always cool and refreshing, and 
indeed the climate is more healthful than that of almost any other Maya 
site. The water-supply is abundant, and the water itself is potable. The 
rainy season begins about the middle of May and lasts until the end of 
December, reaching its height in July. The river is subject to annual 
freshets, when it overflows its banks and inundates the low bottom lands, 
making the soil exceedingly fertile. 

The region enjoys a rich and varied tropical flora. There are many 
useful indigenous species, both cultivated and wild, only a few of the more 
important of which can be enumerated here. 

The two great food staples of Middle America in ancient times, as well 
as to-day, were maize (Zea mays Linneus) and beans (Phase@olus vulgaris 
Linneus), both of which are represented by numerous varieties at Copan 
and are cultivated for specialized purposes, such as rapidity of maturation, 
size of crop, etc. As many as four crops a year may be raised in some 








1Stephens (1841, vol. 1, pp. 90-160) repeatedly mentions the dense vegetation with which the city was envel- 
oped in his time. 

*Gordon, 1896, pp. I, 2, and 1899, p. 42. 

*Popenoe (19194, p. 127) gives the annual rainfall at Copan as between 50 and 70 inches (1.27 to 1.78 meters). 
This estimate is based upon an average annual rainfall of 48.76 inches (1.24 meters) at Guatemala City covering 
the years 1894 to 1902, inclusive (1919, p. 28). 


TSQA chara ss 41.13 inches (1.04 meters). 1899.......41.57 inches (1.05 meters). 
LSOS eee 38.07 inches ( .97 meter). 1900.......60.59 inches (1.54 meters). 
1806..cm om 45-64 inches (1.16 meters). IQGT 24 cen 52.06 inches (1.32 meters). 
ESOT 5. wrk ss 51.36 inches (1.30 meters). 3902. 72-6, 52.32 inches (1.33 meters). 
T8QS Sete. 56.07 inches (1.42 meters). Average for 9 years, 48.76 inches (1.24 meters). 


As the precipitation on the Atlantic side of the Continental Divide in Central America is higher than on the 
Pacific side, it is probable that the annual rainfall at Copan averages at least 15 inches (38 cm.) higher than at 
Guatemala City, and that it is around 65 inches (1.65 meters). 


MORLEY. , | PLATE 4 











@ MAYAPAN * 
CHICHEN ITZA p 
UXraAe ° 
Le KABAH 
G U L F 7M : , 0 LABNA 





LA HONRADEZ e 







®UAXacTUN 


TIKAL® gE ENCANYO 
NAKUM @ 
NARANJO ® yore 


YAXHA §, \ 
BENQUE ViEUO! 


















z ~ WM 
DS La Mare 


EL CHICOZAPOTE 


Z. 2 3 $i 


YAXCHILAN Ante 






te ge ll 
OcosinGo e* 
Ce 









Hayywr™ 


hee Ne 


RUATAN A 


















SS Wh LMA 
CONT 2 





A Weg 


Wiz taut 7 
cage NS 


Avr Eagan 
aa 










wy, yh WQY , 








+ ces ; - @ 


* S LQ wy vee 
ner, PON BANS: 

Pit Say NS we 

a! iP, th ae 

















SS 4 Par 
teyte 8S 
: ge ie 4 ay Ty SCALE 
Be Pas Lyne Sy, < * sy, 7 * Oe o510 20 40 eo 80100 
1 ra a et 2 M 
LLU: sa tA Mya rterttviye, Gene 


ECKERT LITHO. Co., WASH..D.0. 


Map of the region occupied by the Maya civilization showing location of the principal cities having inscriptions. 





= . 
i ~s , 
7 v 
us 
, 
re 
: a 
oe ty 
: — Lin 
. a 
. mS «4 
Lg a> 


I 


= e 
‘ , 
4] 
“ 
y 
at 
* 
zs 
as 
> 
‘ 
‘ 
\ 
{ 
- 





LIBRA RY 
F THE 


IVERSITY OF ILLins: 


. 
. 
Y > 
: ae 
+ 
+ 
5, 
‘ 


LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT. 3 


localities; and there is one variety, with small slender ears less than 15 cm. 
long, which is said to ripen in 60 days. 

The squash was probably next in importance as an article of diet. At 
least two species are known (Pepo maximus Linneus and Pepo vulgaris 
Moench). 

The sweet potato ([pomea batatas Poiret), the aguacate (Persea ameri- 
cana Miller), and the chile were also favorite articles of diet. There are 
two species of the last, the large chile (Capsicum baccatum Linneus) and the 
small chile (Capsicum frutescens Linnzus). 

The region abounds in edible fruits, which must have formed an impor- 
tant part of the food-supply in ancient times. There are at least two species 
of the zapote: the tul tree or common zapote (Achradelpha mammosa Cook) 
and the chico zapote (Achras zapota Linneus). The wood of the latter 
was also used by the Maya for door lintels in the temples; and when these 
have not been subjected to dampness they remain sound and durable even 
after the lapse of 1,500 years. The latex of this same tree produces the chicle 
of commerce, or chewing-gum, but this does not appear to have been used 
among the Maya as in the chewing-gum of to-day. 

Other fruits are several species of the anona (Annona diversifolia 
Safford, Annona reticulata Linneus), the jocote (Spondias purpurea Lin- 
nzus), the pineapple (Ananas sativus Schultes), the guava (Psidium guajava 
Linneus and P. molle Bertoloni), the papaya (Carica papaya Linneus), 
and the nanche (Byrsonima crassifolia Humboldt, Bonpland and Kunth). 

Delicious beverages were made from the cacao tree (Theobroma cacao 
Linneus), and the closely related pataxte tree (Theobroma bicolor Hum- 
boldt and Bonpland). Vanilla (Vanilla planifolia Andrews), a climbing 
orchid, is also found in the forests. 

Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum Linneus) was, and still is, cultivated, the 
Copan leaf being regarded as the finest in Central America. The greater 
part of the tobacco used throughout Guatemala comes from this district; 
indeed, this crop is now the only export of the region, being the chief source 
of support for the present inhabitants of the Copan Valley. 

Among the non-edible species, cotton (Gossypium hirsutum Linneus) 
was doubtless the most important, practically all of the clothing in ancient 
times being made from it. The calabash tree (Crescentia cujete Linneus) 
probably ranked next, the fruit being used in making the smaller cooking 
utensils, such as ladles, bowls, and cups. 

The several species of palm played an important part in the life of the 
people. The leaves of the corozo palm (Attalea cohune Martius) were used 


for thatching the huts of the lower classes. The nuts of this palm and the 4 ' 
coyol palm (Acrocomia vinifera Oersted) were also eaten. A fan palm «> | 
(Sabal sp.) was probably used by the ancient inhabitants in making.:their ~~ 


baskets and matting. 
Among other non-edible species used by the Maya were the bottle gourd 
(Cucurbita lagenaria Linneus), from which the water-carriers or bottles 


4 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


were made; rubber (Castilla sp.); copal (Elaphrium gracile Engler), the gum 
of which was used as incense in the religious rites and ceremonies; several 
fibers, as the Carludovica plant, from which baskets, bags, and carriers were 
made, and the wood of the pine (Pinus tenutfolia Bentham), which was used 
for torches. 

As noted above, the flora is exceedingly rich and varied, particularly in 
species useful to man. Maize, beans, and cotton, however, were the staple 
crops, and such is the extent and fertility of the land available for cultivation 
in the valley that it could easily have supported the large population which 
formerly occupied this region.’ 

The fauna, also, doubtless contributed an important part of the food- 
supply in ancient times.? Of the larger Mammalia hunted for their flesh, 
the deer was probably the most important. Landa states that communal 
deer hunts were held in Yucatan,’ and a considerable section of the Codex 
Tro-Cortesianus is devoted to representations of the snaring of that animal. 
At least two species occur: the white-tailed deer, similar to the Virginia deer 
(Odocoileus truet Merriam), and the brocket or forest deer (Mazama sartorit 
Saussure). 

There are two species of the peccary, the collared peccary (Pecari angu- 
latus Cope) and the white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari Fischer); one species 
of the tapir, Baird’s tapir (Vapzrella bairdi Gill); three species of the 
ant-eater, the great ant-eater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla centralis Lyon), the 
tamandua ant-eater (Tamanduas tetradactyla Linneus), and the two-toed 
ant-eater (Cyclopes didactylus dorsalis Gray). ‘he flesh of all of these 
animals is still eaten. 

Of the smaller Mammalia, the members of the agouti family (Dasyproc- 
tid@) were probably the most highly prized as articles of diet in ancient 
times, as they are to-day; two species are found in the vicinity of Copan, 
the punctated agouti (Dasyprocta punctata Gray), and the tepescuintle 
(Cuniculus paca nelsont Goldman). ‘Their flesh is considered the most 
savory of all the bush meats. 

Two species of monkeys occur, the Guatemalan howling monkey (4lou- 
atta villosa Gray) and the Mexican spider monkey (Ateles neglectus Reinhardt). 





1For a more detailed account of the flora of the Copan region, see Popenoe’s “The Useful Plants of Copan” 
(1919a), from which the foregoing data have been taken. 

*The fauna and flora of Central America are elaborately described in the several sections of the Biologia 
Centrali-Americana, F. Ducane Godman and Osbert Salvin, editors. This publication of many volumes, and 
covering almost every branch of its chosen field, is little short of an encyclopedia of the Natura! History of Central 
America. The above summary of the principal species hunted by the ancient Maya is based upon the sections 
on Mammalia (Alston, 1870-1882) and Aves (Salvin and Godman, 1897-1904) of this work. The earlier nomen- 
clature, much of which has since become obsolete, has been revised by Major E. A. Goldman, of the Biological 
Survey, Department of Agriculture, whose long familiarity with the fauna of Central America and Mexico qualifies 
him to speak authoritatively on this subject. Maudslay’s epoch-making contribution to the archeology of the 
region is also a section of this work. 

3“ They also join together for hunting in companies of fifty, more or less, and they roast the flesh of the deer on 
gridirons so that it shall not spoil, and when they reach the town, they make presents to their Lord, and distribute 
the rest among themselves as among friends.” (Landa, 1881, p. 81.) 

4Brasseur de Bourbourg, 1869-1870, plates 8-19. 


LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENT. 5 


Seven species of the cat family are present. Of these, the jaguar (Felis 
onca goldmant Mearns), the ocelot (Felis pardalis Linneus), and others 
were hunted by the ancient Maya for their skins, which were worn by the 
rulers and principal nobles as cloaks.1 

Other smaller mammals occur in the region, as well as a large number of 
birds, many of which formed part of the food-supply in ancient times, but 
the clearing of the forest and the cultivation of the valley have now driven 
the game deeper into the mountains. 

The ornithology of the region is particularly varied; of the birds hunted 
and trapped for food, the following were the most important: The chachalaca 
(Ortalis vetula Wagler), the curassow (Crax globicera Linneus), the cojolito 
(Penelope purpurascens Wagler), doves (Claravis pretiosa Ferrari-Perez and 
Chemepelia passerina neglecta Carriker), and pigeons (Chlorenas flavirostris 
Wagler). | 

Feathers formed an essential part of ancient Maya costume as depicted 
on the monuments, being especially used in the head-dresses and cloaks of the 
rulers, priests, and nobles. Many species have gorgeous plumage, the follow- 
ing, however, being the most beautiful: the Yucatan turkey (4griocharis 
ocellata Chapman), also highly prized as an article of diet, the macaw (dra 
macao Linneus), the quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno De la Llave), toucans 
(Ramphastos piscivorus Linneus and Pteroglossus torquatus Gmelin), and 
parrots (Amazona oratrix Ridgeway). 

In closing this brief description of the environment, one other important 
feature should be noted, namely, the occurrence of unlimited quantities of 
excellent building material in the immediate vicinity of the ruins. The 
native rock, outcroppings of which are found throughout the valley, was 
peculiarly adapted for use by primitive artisans, especially those having no 
metal tools.? It was easily quarried, easily transported, easily dressed, and 
easily sculptured. 








1)n the monuments human figures are sometimes represented with such jaguar-skin cloaks. On the outer 
wall of the sanctuary of the Temple of the Cross at Palenque, for example, a human figure blowing through a pipe 
is shown with a jaguar skin thrown over his shoulders (Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. tv, plate 72). The principal 
figure on the justly famous vase of Chama, a priest or ruler painted black, also has a jaguar-skin cloak (Dieseldorff, 
1904, plate 48). ‘The head of a jaguar appears as the head-dress of the figure on Stela 20 at Yaxchilan (Maler, 1903, 
plate 78). The beauty of the skin, and possibly veneration of the animal itself, doubtless made its pelt highly 
prized as an article of clothing. 

Landa also mentions the custom: “Some of them, nobles such as the lords and captains, had helmets of wood, 
but these were very few in number, and with these arms they went to war clothed with feathers and the skins of 
tigers (7. ¢., jaguars) and lions.” (Landa, 1881, p. 85.) 

2Tt is generally held that the Maya of the Old Empire (the builders of Copan, Quirigua, Tikal, Naranjo, Seibal, 
Yaxchilan, Piedras Negras, Palenque, and other of the southern cities) did not know the use of metal, or at least of 
metal tools, and that all the intricate carvings of this region were done with tools of stone, such as basalt, diorite, 
or flint, which are harder than the materials sculptured, limestone, sandstone, and andesite. At Copan a number 
of small stone chisels or ax-heads made from these harder materials have been found. These are of different 
lengths, 5 to 15 cm., but of the same general form: slightly wedge-shaped, flattened, with a cutting edge at one end 
and a blunt nose at the other. Judging from the hardness of the materials from which they are made, and 
from their size and shape as well, they would appear to have been adequate for this purpose. Holmes, who made a 
special study of this point while at Copan in 1916, believes the finer work, the finish, was done by abrading tools, 
possibly such as these. He also found a number of rudely chipped implements, which would have served in the 
preliminary dressing of the stone scattered over the site, but he believes their number to be entirely inadequate to 
the performance of the vast work accomplished, especially the quarrying. 


6 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The quarries were located in the ridge of hills about a kilometer to the 
northwest of the Main Structure. Deep excavations may still be seen here; 
and chips, flakes, and even quarried blocks strew the ground.’ From the 
quarries to the city is all down-grade; the stone itself is comparatively light 
in weight, and its transportation anywhere in the valley could hardly have 
offered any real difficulties to a people as resourceful as the builders of Copan. 

The stone is close-grained for the most part, though free masses of 
harder materials occur here and there. Though brittle, it is fairly coherent, 
and capable of extraordinarily delicate treatment, even with chisels of stone, 
the only tools at the builders’ disposal; indeed, its excellent qualities are in 
no small part responsible for the remarkable plastic art which developed here. 

All factors for the development of an intensive culture were at hand: 
healthful climatic conditions; a fertile soil, insuring an adequate return of 
food and raiment when properly developed; a varied and useful fauna; an 
abundance of potable water; and a convenient and inexhaustible supply of 
superior building material. In short, to become a veritable land of promise, 
the region waited only for the coming of an industrious population endowed 
with sufficient cultural impetus to overcome the initial difficulties incident to 
the conquest of any environment. ‘This cultural impetus the Maya provided 
when, probably about the beginning of the Christian Era, they penetrated 
the valley and set about its agricultural development and intensive occupa- 
tion. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE. 

The entire floor of this little valley, 13 kilometers long from end to end 
and containing possibly 30 to 35 square kilometers, is covered with the 
remains of former occupation: ruined stone buildings, terraces, platforms, 
pyramids, stairways, squares, courts, monuments, broken sculptures, pot- 
tery, and stone implements (see plates 2, a, and 4); indeed, the outlying sec- 
tions of the city overflow into smaller adjacent valleys, such as Hacienda 
Grande, 5.5 kilometers to the west of the Main Structure, and Santa Rita, 
12 kilometers to the northeast. Even the hillsides and mountain-tops were 
terraced, and not only the main valley, but also the adjoining valleys, were 
intensively occupied.” (See plate 3.%) 

1 Galindo was the first one to mention the quarries (1834, Appendix XI, pp. 599, 600). They were described 
by Stephens (1841, vol. 1, pp. 146, 147) and they have been variously noted since. See Schmidt, 1883, p. 8, 
and Gordon, 1896, p. 29. 

2Copan’s sphere of cultural influence may be traced as far distant as Los Higos, 80 kilometers to the northeast 
across the divide in the Chamelicon Valley. The resemblances here to the art of Copan, especially between 
Stela 1 (Los Higos) and Stela B at Copan, are so close as to indicate that Los Higos must have been colonized 
directly from Copan. Paraiso, some 50 kilometers to the northeast (plate 1), where the writer found a fairly 
large site in 1914, evidently had drawn its artistic inspiration from the same source. And even Quirigua, itself 
a city of second rank, some 60 kilometers to the north on the other side of the Sierra de Merendén in the 
Motagua Valley (plate 1), was probably also colonized from Copan during the latter part of the Middle Period 
or early in the Great Period, and clearly followed the latter’s artistic ideals. See pages 381-386. 

3The map of the Copan Valley figured in plate 3 is based upon Gordon’s map of the same region. See Gordon, 
1898), map facing page 141. Gordon’s distances and directions have been accepted as substantially correct, and the 
principal change made has been the insertion of the location of a number of inscriptions which were omitted or 
were unknown when his map was made. Maudslay also figures an excellent sketch-map of the valley (1889-1902, 
vol. 1 of text, p. 15), showing not only the present river-bed, but also the approximate position of the old channel 


and giving the provenance of a few of the outlying monuments. Meye also figures a very crude sketch-map of 
the valley (Schmidt, 1883), giving similar incomplete data. 


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE. ¥j 


The principal group of ruins, or the Main Structure as it has been called 
by Gordon,! lies near the center of the valley-plain on the north bank of the 
stream. (See the frontispiece and plate 33.) Formerly the river flowed along 
the base of the hills at the southern side of the valley; but some time after the 
city was built, and probably after it was abandoned, the river changed its 
course and, cutting a new channel nearer the northern foothills, began to 
flow along the eastern edge of the Main Structure. (See plates 3 and 6.) 
As a result of this change, a great part of the substructure has been under- 
mined and washed away, and there is now exposed a vertical surface, 33 
meters in height? and about 100 meters in length, which is probably the 
largest archeological cross-section in the world. (See plate 5.) 

Herein, as from an open book, may be read the history of the city’s 
growth. Successive paved plaza-levels, drains, and even parts of older 
buildings buried in the solid mass of the substructure of this vast, irregularly 
shaped acropolis are clearly exposed. This growth of the Acropolis by 
accretion bespeaks a considerable antiquity for the Main Structure, which, 
however, as will appear later, is probably of more recent origin than the out- 
lying parts of the city, certainly in its present form. 

The Main Structure is composed of five large plazas surrounded by 
pyramids, platforms, temples, and possibly palaces,’ the whole covering 
an area of about 25 hectares. ‘The first map of the city was that made by 
Stephens in 1839.4. It purports to be nothing more than a sketch-map and 
is full of the inevitable inaccuracies common to such, the conditions under 
which it was made precluding the possibility of exact work. One curious 
error in this map should be noted, namely, the positions of the cardinal 
points, which have been reversed 180°, Stephens’s north being south and 
his east, west. In spite of this confusion, however, his map gives a fairly 
adequate idea of the Main Structure. It was, moreover, the first map of 
the city to be published, and as such possesses a bibliographic as well as a 
sentimental interest for the student of this subject. 

The map of the Main Structure by the German engineer Meye in 
1877 is scarcely more accurate than the preceding, although made nearly 
4o years later.© The drawing is more simplified, and there is also figured 
a cross-section of the Acropolis which gives a better idea of this part of the 
Main Structure than can be gathered from Stephens. The measurements 
are also probably more accurate. On the other hand, Meye failed to locate 
four of the stelz® in the Great Plaza given by Stephens, I, B, C, and 4, 
and, judged as a whole, his map may be said to have contributed but little to 
the knowledge of the site. 





1Gordon, 1896, p. 9. 

2Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 26. 

8There seems no reason for doubting that some of the stone buildings were the residences of the rulers, 
nobles, and higher priests; in fact, Landa so implies, in speaking of the northern Maya cities (Landa, 1881, p. 78). 

4Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, map facing p. 133. This takes no account of Galindo’s map made 5 years earlier 
(1834), which has disappeared. See Appendix XI, p. 595. 

’Schmidt, 1883. See also an English translation of the same by A. D. Savage in the same year. 

6For the meaning of the word stelz (singular, stela), as used in this work, see pp. 50, 51. 


8 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Maudslay’s map of the Main Structure is based upon a survey made in 
1885.! It is exceedingly accurate, probably as accurate as can be without 
complete excavation to determine the exact positions of corners and interior 
plans. He also figures several elevations, which go far toward simplifying 
the complexity of the Acropolis.” 

The plan of Copan published by the Peabody Museum of Harvard 
University, based upon the survey made by Gordon in 1892-1895, enumer- 
ates 56 more important mounds at the Main Structure.’ 

Mr. W. V. Alford has published a map of Copan‘ based upon a survey he 
made about 1893. Although fairly accurate, it falls far short of the map made 
by the Fourth Peabody Museum Expedition, and it contributes nothing to 
the knowledge of the site. 

The map of the Main Structure used in this volume (see plate 6) is 
based upon the Maudslay and Gordon surveys and the relief map in the 
Peabody Museum. ‘The drawing has been considerably simplified, a more 
diagrammatic presentation being desired, particularly in the manner of 
showing the substructures and temple ground-plans.* 

The most prominent part of the Main Structure is the great irregular 
mass of pyramids, temples, and plazas, which may properly be called the 
Acropolis. This lofty construction or, more correctly speaking, group of 
constructions, reaches a maximum elevation of 40 meters above the mean 
low level of the river,® and with the grove of trees on its summit is the most 
conspicuous landmark in the valley. (See plate 4.) Here are the most 
important temples, and here doubtless centered the religious life of the city. 
It contains three main plazas: the Eastern and Western Courts and the 
Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, all the principal temples facing on one or 
the other of these, Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 21a, and 22 on the first, No. 16 on the 
second, and Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, and 26 on the third. (See plate 6.) 

It should be remembered that the Acropolis was not all planned and 
built at the same time, but that it grew gradually, now a temple here, now a 
pyramid there. It is evident from the cross-section exposed by the river that 
it began in a small way. Five or six different paved plaza levels may be 
traced before we reach the final levels of the Eastern and Western Courts as 
they were at the close of the Great Period. As yet we have no exact data 
as to how long the Acropolis was in course of construction, that is, the 
period of time which elapsed between the building of the lowest and the 
highest plaza levels, although evidence has been presented elsewhere (page 





I1Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 1; and vol. 1 of text, pp. 17, 18. 

*Ibid., vol. 1, plates 2 and 3. In a description of Copan, written by Allen in 1885, there is a perspective 
drawing of the Main Structure based upon Stephens’s map. ‘This is very crude, even showing the section exposed 
by the river as a masonry wall. See Allen, 1885, p. 568. 

3Gordon, 1896, plate I. 

4See Alford, 1899, p. 10. 

’This map was made by Mr. Malcolm Willoughby at the Peabody Museum. In addition to the use of much 
unpublished material belonging to the Museum, the writer had the benefit of the Director’s advice on several 
important points, particularly with reference to the ground-plans of Temples 11, 20, 21, 21a, and 22. 

6&Gordon, 1896, p. 9. 


DESCRIPTION’ OF (THE SITE: 9 


163) tending to show that it may have been commenced shortly after 
9.11.0.0.0 of the Maya Era.!_ As to the date of its completion, however, we 
can speak with more assurance. In its present form, the Acropolis seems 
to have been completed about 9.17.0.0.0 of the Maya Era, some 12 years 
before the last stele were erected in the Great Plaza and probably less than 
50 years before the city itself was abandoned. This date is recorded both 
on Temple 21a in the Eastern Court and on the reviewing stand in the 
Western Court, and also on Altar Z standing on the terrace between the two. 
(See plate 6.) 

The earliest of these three courts, the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stair- 
way, lies at the northern base of the Acropolis, the northernmost extensions of 
which form its eastern and western ends. (See plate 6.) Itisg1 meters long 
and 43 meters wide, and is unique in having the longest inscription known in 
the Corpus feecaticuhta Mayarum, namely, that on the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway ascending the western slope of Mound 26.? 

There are two stele in this court, M and N,? and five temples around its 
sides—Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, and 26. Of these, only Temples 11 and 26 were 
decorated with sculpture, but they are among the most elaborate in the city. 

No trace now remains of Temple 26, but the sculptures fallen from it at 
the base of the substructure justify the belief that it must have ranked with 
Temples 11 and 22 in magnificence. 

Temple 11 was excavated by Maudslay in 1885 and was found to contain 
some very handsomely decorated interior chambers, a hieroglyphic step, and 
panels.4 

The remaining temples, Nos. 7, 9, and 10, were excavated by Gordon in 
1892-1895, but they did not contain any interior sculptures.* 

Temple 26 and the hieroglyphic stairway leading to it were completed in 
9.16.5.0.0, and during the next 15 years the Eastern and Western Courts 
were laid out in their final forms and the series of magnificent temples sur- 
rounding them (Nos. 11, 16, 20, 21, 21a, and 22) were erected. This was 
the greatest and probably also the final period of architectural activity at 
Copan. Possibly the site continued to be occupied for a number of years 
after the close of building operations, but since thejlater monuments show no 
falling off in style, we are forced to conclude that the city was abandoned at 
its zenith, and before decline and decay had made themselves felt to any 
appreciable extent. 

The Western Court would appear to have been of less importance than 
the Eastern Court, since only one of the principal temples, No. 16, faces upon 


1The method of transcribing Maya dates in terms of our own notation will be explained in a later section of 
this chapter, see pp. 47-49. The corresponding equivalents in Christian chronology will be given in Appendix IT, 
where the whole subject of the correlation of Maya and Christian chronology has been reviewed. 

2For a detailed description of this important text, see pp. 237-274 and Gordon, 1902. 

3The nomenclature of the different monuments at Copan is somewhat confusing, different systems having 
been employed at different times. The system followed here, namely, that commenced by Maudslay and 
enlarged by Gordon and the writer, is explained in Appendix III. 

4Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 21, 22. 

5Gordon, 1896, pp. 20, 21, 25. 


10 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


it. This court is 70 meters long and 33 meters wide, and its floor-level is 
g meters above the general level of the plain. In addition to Temple 16, 
there are two platforms, 13 and 14,and a reviewing stand at the northern end. 
The floor of this court is strewn with sculptured fragments, probably the 
wreckage of the facade of Temple 16, and there are 5 or 6 sculptured monu- 
ments in it—Stela P and Altars Q, V, H’, and I’, and possibly Altar W.? 

Temple 16 was excavated by Maudslay in 1885, and a headless seated 
human figure in stone and several smaller objects were found in the single 
chamber preserved.? The reviewing stand at the northern end of the court 
was partially excavated by Gordon in 1892-1895 (right end) and was com- 
pleted by the writer in 1912 and 1915. It bears the date 9.17.0.0.0 of the 
Maya Era. 

The Eastern Court was probably the most holy part of the city. Here 
is the most magnificent temple, No. 22, and here clustered a greater number 
of sacred buildings than anywhere else in the valley (Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 21a). 
This court is 42 meters long and 33 meters wide, and the level of its floor is 
very slightly higher than the floor of the Western Court. 

In the center of the northern side, rising from a terrace 8 meters high, is 
Temple 22, the most ornate, the most elaborately sculptured, in short, the 
most magnificently embellished structure in the Maya area, and beyond 
doubt the principal temple at Copan. It is 26 meters long and 12 meters 
wide. There is an outer chamber terminating in two small lateral chambers, 
and a back chamber or sanctuary. The facade, now fallen, was once 
decorated with an elaborate sculptured mosaic. ‘This temple’s chief claim to 
distinction, however, lies in the sculptural decoration above the doorway 
leading into the sanctuary. ‘lwo gigantic death-heads, one on either side of 
the interior doorway, support squatting human figures of heroic size, on top 
of whose shoulders curl upward two grotesque monsters, in whose coils are 
caught smaller human figures. The tails of these two monsters meet over 
the center of the doorway, where another small human figure sits. 

Finally, the riser of the step leading into the sanctuary is sculptured with 
a double row of finely carved glyphs. The barbaric splendor of this door- 
way, its central position in the temple, 7. ¢., leading into the sanctuary, and 
the commanding position of the temple itself, dominating the principal court, 
all tend to indicate that in Temple 22 we have the most important religious 
structure in the city. 

Maudslay gives some excellent views of Temple 22 during and after 
excavation, and also a restoration of this inner doorway. ‘The latter, 
though falling far short of the original in artistic feeling, gives an adequate 
idea of the appearance of the approach to the sanctuary in ancient times.° 

To the east of Temple 22, and arranged around the northeast corner of 
the Eastern Court, are three other temples, Nos. 21a, 21, and 20, all of 

1The exact provenance of Altar W is unknown (see pp. 364, 365). It has been referred to the Western Court 
in plate 6 for want of more accurate information as to its original position. 


2Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 25, and vol. 1, plate ro. 
3[bid., vol. 1, plate 12; see also plates 13-16. 


DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE. II 


considerable importance. Temple 21a has the date 9.17.0.0.0 inscribed on 
the riser of the step leading into its sanctuary, the same date as that on the 
reviewing stand in the Western Court. Temples 21 and 21a were excavated 
by Saville in 1891-1892! and Temple 20 by Maudslay in 1885.” 

Maudslay found traces of a building along the east side of this court, 
most of which has now fallen into the river (see plate 6), and at its southern 
end there is a raised foundation which had supported another temple, No. 
18. The latter must have been of considerable importance, as excavation 
disclosed a large number of sculptured fragments lying in its corridors. (See 
also pp. 371, 372.) 

On the remaining side of the Eastern Court rises the Jaguar Stairway, 
leading to the terrace between the Eastern and Western Courts. Maudslay 
gives a partial restoration of this stairway, which seems to have been of 
graceful proportions and effective decoration.‘ 

Galindo excavated a tomb at the eastern side of this court, just in front 
of the mouth of the drain leading down through the foundations of Temple 19. 
It contained more than fifty red earthenware dishes and pots (many filled 
with human bones packed in lime), several sharp-edged obsidian knives, and 
three small human heads carved out of jadeite or nephrite. The latter were 
perforated at the backs for use as pendants.° 

The number and magnificence of the temples and other buildings sur- 
rounding this court clearly indicate that it was the center of the religious life 
of the city, relatively as important to the people of Copan as the Acropolis to 
the Athenians or Solomon’s Temple to the Children of Israel. 

Along the southern side of the Acropolis is a lower terrace with several 
less important structures. 

Standing on the lofty summit of this massive accretion, probably the 
growth of nearly two centuries, the city spreads before one in bird’s-eye 
presentation. Some little distance to the north s the Great Plaza with its 
many monuments, the largest gathering-place in the city. (See plate 7, dD.) 
Nearer is the somewhat less well-defined Middle Court, with the long building 
6 on its western side and Stela 3 in the middle. Still nearer, against the 
northern base of the Acropolis, is the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, 
already described. To the west, for 2 kilometers, stretches a long succession 
of pyramids, platforms, and mounds, the remains of stone buildings. (See 
plate 2,4.) Indeed, these extend far beyond the modern village, which itself 
is built on the site of an important earlier group (No. 9). Finally, to the 
south and east the plain is covered with the remains of stone structures 
extending to the sides of the valley, which are somewhat nearer in these 
directions. (See plate 4.) 

1Gordon, 1896, pp. 17-19. 
2Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 26, 27. 
SIbid., p. 26. 


*Tbids) pp-417; 129. 
5Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 596, and 18354, pp. 547, 548. 


12 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The Great Plaza was probably the most important gathering-place in 
the city, since it is the largest, being 96 meters wide by 112 meters long. It 
has tiers of steps or seats running around three sides, giving it the effect of a 
vast square theater, the fourth side being open except for the pyramid mound 
No. 4, which stands by itself. This pyramid shows very clearly in plate 7, d, 
and its isolated and commanding position with reference to the plaza doubt- 
less indicates that it played an important part in the spectacles and cere- 
monies enacted there. It is approached by a stairway on the east side, and 
Maudslay,' who excavated it in 1885, was of the opinion that a building had 
never stood on its summit. 

Within this spacious court are to be found most of the finer stele: 
A,-B,.C, D, F,-H, and 4, and several of the older-ones, 16; 17, E; and 1. >In 
plate 7, a and b, the positions of these several monuments are indicated by 
arrows above, and their corresponding names appear below. Its construc- 
tion would appear to have been commenced after 9.12.5.0.0 of the Maya Era, 
and prior to 9.13.10.0.0.. At least Stela I and its altar, which record the 
former date, stand in a niche or recess that has been left in the terrace on 
the eastern side, the terrace being built around them, apparently indicating 
that they were erected prior to its construction; and Stela J, recording the 
latter date, was probably the first monument erected after the Great Plaza 
was laid out. 

The Great Plaza was probably completed about 9.15.0.0.0 (date of 
Stele A and B) and following this, for the next 33 years, the center of building 
activity was shifted to the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, where Temples 
4,.9;.10,:26,-and ‘LI were next erected: | 

In the Gordon and Maudslay maps no Middle Court is recognized, all 
the large area north of the Acropolis being included in the Great Plaza. For 
purposes of closer description, however, it has seemed better to divide this 
large,and broken area into two courts, the Great Plaza and the Middle Court. 
(See plate 6.) 

The former, as defined here, is a perfectly definite architectural unit; 
terraces extend along three sides, the center of the fourth side being occupied 
by a single pyramid. (See plate 6.) The latter, as used here, is rather 
clearly defined on the map, and even more so on the ground, Structures 4, 6, 
5, 7, 9, and the L-shaped extension of 10 forming an inclosure scarcely less 
marked than the Great Plaza, and sufficiently a unit to warrant its separation 
from the larger area. 

The Middle Court contains few sculptures. Stela 3 in the center is the 
most important; Stela 1 and its altar in the southeast corner and Altar K on 
the west side are the only other monuments in the inclosure. Stela 2 lies 
just outside of the court to the east, and Altar L is on top of the extension of 
Mound 10 mentioned above. 

As already noted, in addition to the Main Structure and the parts of the 
plain immediately adjacent, the valley for a distance of several miles, both 





'Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 20. 


DESCRIPTION. OF “THE SITE: 13 


up stream and down, is covered with the remains of stone structures, and at 
some of these outlying groups have been found the most archaic monuments 
of all. A brief description of the more important of these groups follows, 
their location on plate 3 being shown by the green numbers. 


1. At the modern village of Santa Rita, 12 kilometers up the valley, northeast 
of the Main Structure, are the remains of an important settlement having at 
least one court. There are a number of mounds, many blocks of dressed stone, 
sculptured fragments throughout the village, and pieces of one monument, Stela 23. 
(See plate 3.) 

2. About a kilometer south of the road to Santa Rita, 6.5 kilometers up the 
valley, northeast of the Main Structure, is a terraced hill overlooking the Copan 
River. Onits leveled summit stand Stela 13 and the associated altar. (See plate 3.) 

3. On the leveled crest of a ridge about half way to the top of the mountain, 
2.5 kilometers east of the Main Structure, is Stela 12, the eastern Piedra Pintada. 
(See plate 3.) 

4. Just west of the Quebrada Seca, on the first bench of foot-hills above 
the road to Santa Rita, 2.5 kilometers northeast of the Main Structure, are the 
remains of a rather extensive group. ‘There are a number of stone buildings, and 
the wealth of sculptured fragments which strews the ground indicates its former 
importance. Fragment Z’ was found here. (See plate 3.) 

5. On the west bank of the Copan River, 1 kilometer east of the northern 
end of the Main Structure, is a small group of mounds surrounding a plaza, in the 
center of which stands Altar W’. (See plate 3.) 

6. Just east of the quarries, on the first bench of foot-hills above the road to 
Santa Rita, 0.5 kilometer north of the Main Structure, is a small group con- 
taining a very elaborately sculptured temple, which, judging from the fragments 
lying around, must have been one of the most beautiful in the valley. (See 
plate 3.) 

7. On a low ridge overlooking the valley, 1 kilometer south of the Main 
Structure, is a group of mounds. Nearby is a rock-cut shrine, hewn from an out- 
cropping of the native rock, and consisting of several grotesque figures and altars, 
the most conspicuous of which is a gigantic toad; hence the name Shrine of The 
Toad, here suggested for this group. (See plate 3.) 

8. West of the Main Structure 1 kilometer is a group of pyramids and mounds, 
and seven monuments: Stela 6 and its altar, Stela 5 and its two altars, Altar 
X, and a human figure, the two last found in the foundations of Stela 5. (See 
plate 3.) 

g. On the site of the modern village of Copan, 2 kilometers west of the Main 
Structure, are numerous remains of an important settlement. ‘There was at least 
one large plaza, now occupied by the plaza of the modern village, surrounded by 
a number of pyramids, mounds, and the following monuments: Stelz 20, 21, 22, 


fee2s, 15,18, and -7:and Altars P’, O’,.U%. 5, U, - Eland Vieanda ice 
of fragmentary inscriptions V’.. Some of the foregoing are the most archaic monu- 
ments found at Copan, notably Stelz 20, 22, 24, 15, and 25, and Altars P’, Q’, Le 
and M’. With the exception of the Main Structure, this is the largest group in the 
valley. (See plate 3.) 

to. On the site of the modern cemetery, 3 kilometers west of the Main Struc- 
ture, is a leveled area and two monuments, Stelz 8 and 9, and in the immediate 
vicinity on a lower bench to the south is a third, Altar I’. (See plate 3.) 

11. West of the Main Structure 4 kilometers is an important group of mounds 
and pyramids with the remains of a number of stone buildings, but no sculp- 


I4 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


tures or monuments. This group occupies a comparatively level stretch toward 
the western end of the valley-plain, and is quite large. (See plate 3). 

12. On the crest of the hill forming the western boundary of the valley, 
4.5 kilometers west of the Main Structure, are Stela 10 (the Western Piedra 
Pintada) and Altars J’ and K’, found in its foundations. The summit has been 
leveled and a retaining-wall built along the eastern edge. (See plate 3.) 

13. At Hacienda Grande, in a small valley entering the main valley from the 
north, 5.5 kilometers west of the Main Structure, are the remains of an extensive 
settlement, including several courts and plazas and one stela, 19, with two altars; 
this was the third largest settlement in the valley. (See plate 3.) 

14. In some cliffs along the Rio Sesesmil, 6.5 kilometers north of the modern 
village, are a number of caverns showing signs of human occupation. (See 


plate 3.) 

15. At Llano Grande, 8 kilometers north of the modern village, is a plain 
covered with the remains of stone structures, but no sculptures or monuments. 
(See plate 3.) 


All of these groups, with the exception of Nos. 9 and 10, which are parts 
of the same settlement, and date from the Early Period, probably date from 
the Middle Period. This is almost certainly true of Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, and 
13, and probably also true of Nos. 11 and 15. Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and possibly 
No. 7 date from the Great Period. 

The settlement at the site of the modern village, Nos. 9 and 10, would 
appear to have been the first in the valley. By the beginning of the Middle 
Period, however, the occupation of the entire region was well under way; and 
finally, by the beginning of the Great Period, the Main Structure had out- 
distanced all the others and had become the religious and governmental 
center of the tribe. 

In closing this description too strong emphasis can not be laid upon the 
fact that every available spot in the valley was intensively occupied in 
ancient times. Wherever one strays from the beaten trails, one encounters 
the vestiges of former occupation: fallen buildings, fragments of elaborate 
sculptural mosaics, pyramids, platforms, terraces, and mounds. Indeed, it 
was not until his seventh and most recent visit to Copan (June 1919) that the 
writer saw Groups 4 and 6 for the first time, although both are within 2.5 
kilometers of the Main Structure. It seems probable, therefore, that future 
investigation will bring to light still other groups, until it will be found that 
practically the entire valley from Santa Rita at the eastern end to Hacienda 
Grande at the western end was one continuous settlement, one city. 


HISTORY OF THE SITE. 


The derivation of the name Copan is not clear. Indeed, it is even 
doubtful whether the city was known by this name in ancient times. The 
earliest-known use of the name as applied to this particular group of ruins 
is in a letter from Don Diego Garcia de Palacio, Oidor of the Audiencia Real 


1For other descriptions of Copan, consult the bibliography on page 617 et seq. 


MORLEY 


PEAT Eve 





a. 


The Copan Valley looking west, showing ruined buildings between the Main Structure 
and the present village. 





b. The modern village of Copan looking west. 


Courtesy of the Peabody Museum 





» 





“ 


re . 7" » ‘ ; 
Pa ae et a a aq a) au. oo 





HISTORY OF, THE, SILE: 15 


of Guatemala, to Philip II, King of Spain, written at the city of Guatemala 
(now Antigua Guatemala) on March 8, 1576. In this letter Palacio gives 
a description of the ruins which he says were called Copan: 


“Near here, on the road to the city of San Pedro, in the first town within the 
province of Honduras, called Copan, are certain ruins and vestiges of a great popula- 
tion, and of superb edifices, of such skill that it appears they could never have been 
built by a people as rude as the natives of that province.”’! 


This letter clearly establishes the association of the name Copan with 
the group of ruins now known by that name, as early as the first generation 
after the Spanish Conquest, 1524-1576, but does not give any details as 
to its derivation or meaning. 

Fuentes y Guzman, who wrote more than a century later (1689), gives 
the meaning as “bridge”: “The word Copan signifies bridge. Outside this 
city are health-giving waters, and the famous river of the same name 
traverses it.’” 

Gordon suggests the meaning “Capital of Co” on the grounds that 
pan in the Maya language means banner, or, as used in names of cities, it 
was equivalent to capital.* Neither of these etymologies, however, appears 
entirely satisfactory: the first, though possible, is rather far-fetched, and 
the second largely begs the question, since it makes no attempt to translate 
the first half of the name. Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether 
the word is of Mayan origin at all. It is well-known that Nahua migrations 
swept down the west coast of Central America as far south as the Peninsula 
of Nicoya, Costa Rica, at a very early date, certainly long prior to the Span- 
ish Conquest; Copan, therefore, may be a Nahua place-name applied to the 
region, long subsequent to the occupation and abandonment of the site now 
known by that name. 

This hypothesis, moreover, has something more substantial in its favor 
than historical possibility. The particle pan in Nahuatl used as a suffix 


1Squier, 1860, pp. 88,91. Some of the earlier historians, Herrera, for example, made use of the contents of 
this letter, but took no notice of the part describing the ruins of Copan. The first to call attention to this im- 
portant early description of the site was Don Juan Bautista Munoz y Ferradis, a Spanish historian, who 
mentions the account in a report of 1785 (Brasseur de Bourbourg, 1866, p. 8). Four English translations of it, 
either in whole or in part, have been published: (1) Squier, 1858, pp. 242, 243, gives only the part describing 
the ruins; (2) Squier, 1860, pp. 88-97, gives the entire Spanish text as well as an English translation; (3) Mauds- 
lay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 5-7, gives the translation of the part describing the ruins only; (4) Gordon, 
1896, pp. 45-48, gives the Maudslay translation and the corresponding part of the Spanish text. In addition to 
the foregoing English translations it has been published in Spanish in Pacheco, 1866, tom. VI, pp. 37-39; in the 
Gaceta Oficial (of Honduras), tom. 6, numero 91, Nov. 11, 1868, pp. 1-4; in Fernandez, 1881, tom. 1, pp. I-52; 
and in Gordon, 1914; in French in Ternaux Compans, 1840, pp. 42-44; and in Nouce sur le Yucathan, 1843, 
tom. XCVII, pp. 38-40; and in German, Frantzius, 1873, pp. 1-62. 

Garcia de Palacio’s description, it will be found, is accurate and restrained, far more so, indeed, than that of 
Fuentes y Guzman (1689) given in Appendix V. It might almost, as Maudslay happily observes, “have been 
written by any intelligent visitor within even the last few years.’ (Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, <p. 7.) 

In spite of the fact that it has already been so generally and satisfactorily circulated, it has seemed advisable ., 
to republish the Squier-Maudslay translation here, because of the great importance of the account, as being P 
the first contemporary reference to the ruins known. (See Appendix IV.) 

2Fuentes y Guzman, 1689, p. 211. The second and third parts of this work have never been sibik ok See 
Appendix V for his complete account. 

3Gordon, 1899, p. 41. 


16 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


with substantives means in, on, inside, during, and for; for example, apan, 
“on the water”; ¢lalpan, “on the earth”; and negaualizpan, “during Lent, 
during fasting.”! It occurs very frequently in Nahua place-names, as Chi- 
malpan, “on the shields,’” Teotlalpan, “in the lands of the gods,”* and even 
Coapan, ‘“‘in the waters of the snakes.’ 

The particle pan used by Gordon in his etymology, however, is not the 
above, but another derived from the Nahua word “pantli,” meaning flag, 
banner, wall, line, or row.° 

This latter derivation is somewhat supported by Galindo, who gives 
Copante or Copantli as variant spellings, but without stating his authority 
for so doing.® Whether this is a naive attempt on the part of Galindo to 
connect the name with the Nahua word panitli1, or whether it is a bona-fide 
variant, unfortunately can not be determined, since he cites no authority for 
its use. 

In the Maya language even less satisfactory etymologies are to be 
found. The Motul Dictionary, composed about 1577, at the convent of 
Motul, northern Yucatan, gives cop=rope, liana, or things twisted, and pan, 
banner or standard, the latter clearly borrowed from the Nahuatl. Copan 
might thus perhaps signify “a twisted banner.”’ The same dictionary gives 
for the word copaan, “twisted or rolled up,” 2. ¢., the past participle of cop. 

The only other Maya place-name containing the particle pan with 
which the writer is familiar is Mayapan, a large site, in northern Yucatan, 
the meaning of which is usually given as “the standard of the Maya,’’ 
clearly a borrowed derivation from the Nahuatl. 

That Copan is Nahua rather than Maya appears to be the best explana- 
tion of the word; if so,it could not have been the name by which the place 
was originally known. The old name doubtless had been forgotten long 
before the time of the Spanish Conquest, and unless the hieroglyph by which 
it was expressed should be identified, it will probably never be known. 

In the Spanish period, according to Fuentes y Guzman, Copan was 
one of the villages of the Province of Chiquimula de la Sierra, of the Kingdom 
of Guatemala. ‘This latter unit of the Spanish colonial empire comprised 
roughly the greater part of Central America and the state of Chiapas in 
southern Mexico. Its affairs were administered by a governor and captain- 
general, whose capital was at Santiago de los Caballeros de Guatemala, 
now Antigua Guatemala. 

The Province of Chiquimula de la Sierra was subdued in 1524 by Juan 
Perez Dardon, Sancho de Baraona, and Bartolomé Bezerra, acting under 
the orders of Pedro de Alvarado, the conqueror of Guatemala. These were 
the first Europeans to penetrate this region, but they have left no notice 
of a large native city or civilized tribe in the vicinity of the ruins. 





1Simeon, 1885, p. 274. 2Penafiel, 1885, pp. 108, 109. 3[bid., p. 187. *Tbid. p77. 

5Simeon, ibid. p. 332. SGalindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 595, and 1836a, p. 76. 

7Brinton, 1882, p. 119. About 1200 a. p. northern Yucatan was subjected to a strong Nahua influence 
(Morley, 19134, pp. 66, 67, 74, 75; also 1915, pp. 4-6, and 19174, pp. 147, 148) and many Nahua words were doubt- 
ess introduced into the Maya language about this time, possibly pan among others. 


HISTORY OF THE. SITE. 27. 


Six years later, in 1530, the country having been thrown into disorder 
by the actions of the Visitador Orduna, the natives of Chiquimula, following 
the example of many other tribes, seized the opportunity to throw off the 
Spanish yoke. When this news reached the capital, an expedition under 
the leadership of Hernando de Chaves and Pedro Amalin was hastily organ- 
ized and dispatched to the revolted province. After several preliminary 
battles, notably at Jalpatagua and Muitlan, in which the natives were 
defeated, the Spanish troops laid siege to Esquipulas, the Indian capital 
of the region. This was a strongly fortified place belonging to a powerful 
Indian lord and was defended by a large number of his people. Hernando 
de Chaves called upon them to surrender, offering peace to the inhabitants 
should they comply, as had been commanded by order of the King in such 
cases. After four days’ deliberation the Indians decided to surrender, 
saying that they did so“ more out of respect to the ‘public tranquillity than 
from fear of the Spanish arms.’ Some of the chief men were given as hos- 
tages, the Spaniards took possession of the town, and the whole province of 
Chiquimula was subdued in the month of April 1530." 

One of the chief instigators of this revolt had been the lord of a neighbor- 
ing town, which Fuentes y Guzman calls Copan, one of the largest and richest 
places in the vicinity;’ and as soon as the region about Esquipulas had been 
pacified, Hernando de Chaves set about its subjugation also. The lord of 
Copan, one Copan Calel, had a powerful army of more than 30,000 warriors, 
drawn not only from his own tribe but also from the neighboring towns of 
Zacapa, Sensenti, Guixar, and Ustua. The town was surrounded by a moat, 
and when the Spaniards under Chaves advanced to the attack they were 
resolutely beaten off, losing many men. Indeed, had it not been for the 
treachery of a native chief, who had a grievance against Copan Calel, the 
attack would probably have failed altogether. This traitor, having escaped 
to the Spanish camp, betrayed a way across the moat. The Spaniards forced 
this passage, and after further hard fighting entered the town. Copan 
Calel bravely resisted their advance, but was finally obliged to give way 
before superior equipment and military training. He fled to the extremity 
of his domains, where he organized another force and again took the field, 
but the back of the revolt was broken and shortly after he sent ambassadors 
to Chaves to sue for peace. Later he was received by the Spanish commander 
at Copan with great distinction and kindness. 

Fuentes y Guzman narrates these events at some length in his Historia 
de Guatemala, where he attempts to identify this town of Copan with the 
site whose inscriptions form the subject of the present investigation.’ 

1Both Fuentes y Guzman (1689, pp. 169-186) and Juarros (1808, tom. 11, pp. 151-156) give the details of 
this expedition. The latter would appear to have derived at least part of his information, that dealing with the 
subjugation of the Province of Chiquimula, directly from the archives of the Cabildo of Guatemala City, since 
he cites as his reference for these events, lib. 1 de Cabildo, fol. 162. 

2Fuentes y Guzman, ibid., p. 200. 


8[bid., pp. 200-210. Juarros (1808, tom. 11, pp. 151-156) gives the same account, doubtless copied from the 
former. 


18 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


So important are these passages in the present connection that they have 
been given in full in Appendix V. 

There seems to have been no doubt in the minds of either Fuentes y 
Guzman or his copyist Juarros that the Copan conquered by Hernando de 
Chaves in 1530 and the group of ruins described as early as 1576 under this 
name by Garcia de Palacio were one and the same place. This conclusion, 
however, has been seriously challenged by practically all modern students, 
and, as will appear later, it now seems safe to discard it altogether. The 
Copan of the two accounts never could have been the same place. 

Fuentes y Guzman’s description of the ruins is so fanciful, indeed, as to 
raise a question as to whether or not he ever saw them himself.’ Some of 
his statements are so extraordinary, so exaggerated that, taking them at 
their face value, he stands guilty either of extreme gullibility or of gross 
misrepresentation. His description, however, although far less accurate 
than the Garcia de Palacio account of the preceding century (1576), is 
interesting, and it is important because of its early date (1689). Since the 
original has never been completely published, a translation of it is given in 
Appendix V. Juarros, in his history of Guatemala, published in 1808,’ 
adds nothing new to Fuentes y Guzman’s description of the ruins.’ In fact, 
he follows the latter so closely that one suspects that he, too, never visited 
the site. Juarros’s account appears to have been extensively copied by 
later writers, however, and is largely responsible for the general dissemina- 
tion of Fuentes y Guzman’s exaggerations or misstatements. 

After Garcia de Palacio’s visit in 1576 there is a long period—more than 
two and a half centuries—before the next description of the ruins by an eye- 
witness. In April 1834, Colonel Juan Galindo, acting under a commission 
from the government of Central America,‘ visited Copan and made a study 
of the site. Galindo was an army officer and had been commandant at 
Flores in the Department of Peten, where he had made extensive explora- 
tions. He would seem to have had rather more than average experience in 
such matters, having prior to his visit to Copan already undertaken similar 
investigations at Palenque and Utatlan (Santa Cruz Quiché). He spent sev- 
eral months at Copan, making plans, views, and copies of the inscriptions and 
figures, and in writing a long report on the ruins and their history, which he 
says “the government of Central America intends publishing.’’> This report, 
however, appears never to have been published; and indeed has only very 
recently come to light in Mr. William Gates’s large collection of Maya 
manuscripts at Point Loma, California. (See Appendix XI.) A summary 


1Maudslay (1886, p. 572) also expresses the belief that Fuentes y Guzman did not visit the ruins himself, but 
wrote only from hearsay. 

*Compendio de la Historia de la Ciudad de Guatemala, by Senor Don Domingo Juarros, Guatemala, 1808. 
An English translation of this appeared in 1823 under the title 4 Statistical and Commercial History of the 
Kingdom of Guatemala, London, 1823; and a second Spanish edition in Guatemala in 1857. 

3Juarros, 1808, tom. I, pp. 43, 44. 

4At this time, the five Central American Republics were united under one government: the United States of 
Central America (1823-1840). 

5Galindo, 18354, p. 545. 


HISTORY OF THE SITE. 19 


of its contents is to be found in several letters which Galindo wrote from 
Copan in June 1834 to scientific societies both in Europe and America. 

Galindo’s report is superficial, and contributes but little to the pre- 
vious knowledge of the site. His historical speculations are highly extrav- 
agant and correspondingly valueless. Thus, for example, he asserts with 
considerable emphasis that America is the cradle of the human race: ‘‘The 
Indian human race of America I must assert to be the most ancient on the 
globe” ;? and his contention that Copan was colonized by the ‘‘Tultecos’’ 
from Mexico about the close of the sixth century after Christ is, of course, 
equally preposterous. He follows the error of Fuentes y Guzman and 
Juarros in believing that the site was occupied as recently as 1530;? and he 
seems to have known of no description of the ruins based on a personal 
examination previous to his own.’ 

One of the most interesting points brought out by Galindo is that none 
of the stele appears to have fallen since his time. He says in this connec- 
tion: “There are seven obelisks still standing and entire, in the temple and 
its immediate vicinity; and there are numerous others, fallen and destroyed, 
throughout the ruins of the city.’ 

To-day there are 8 stele standing at Copan: A, B, D, F, H, J, N, 
and P, one more than given by Galindo. He could hardly have failed to 





1Two of these were written on the same day, June 19, 1834, and but for one or two paragraphs are identical. 
One (Galindo, 1835) appeared in the London Literary Gazette and Journal of Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences, 
etc., No. 965, Saturday, July 18, 1835, pp. 456,457. This letter opens with a paragraph, referring to an earlier 
article of his on Palenque, which had also appeared in the same weekly, but omits the sentence re erring to the 
coming publication of his report and drawings by the government of Central America. 

The second letter (Galindo, 18352) was addressed to the Hon. T. L. Winthrop, president of the American 
Antiquarian Society. Curiously enough, as printed this letter bears the heading “Copan, June 19, 1835,” 
clearly a misprint for 1834, as proved by the original of Galindo’s report to the government of Central America 
in the Gates collection. See Appendix XI. Barring the omission of the first paragraph and the insertion of the 
sentence referring to the projected publication of the report, the two letters are identical. This letter was pub- 
lished in the Transactions of the American Antiquarian Society, vol. 11, pp. 543-550. 

Galindo appears to have written another letter of 36 pages, also from Copan, accompanied by to drawings, to 
the Société de Géographie de Paris about the same time: “Enfin une lettre en 36 pages datée de Copan avec dix 
dessins assez bien exécutés” (Galindo, 1836, p. 268). Neither this letter nor the accompanying drawings seem to 
have been published, though two summaries appeared, one in the Bulletin de la Société de Géographie (deuxiéme 
serie, tom. V, pp. 260, 267-272, 288), cited here as Galindo, 1836, and the other in Antiquités Méxicaines (tom. 1, 
premiere partie, pp. 73, 75, 76), cited here as Galindo, 18364. These two summaries are also practically identical. 

The ten drawings which accompanied Galindo’s letter to the Société de Géographie were: “1. The general 
plan and a view of the great temple of Copan, bathed by the river of that name, and commonly called las ventanas 
or the windows; the ruins are imposing; they are distinguished by many columns, sculptured and painted monu- 
ments standing by themselves, which the author compares to obelisks. 2. Some plans and elevations. 3. Some 
details of figures which ornament the obelisks and altars.” (Galindo, 18362, p. 77.) 

Hamy (1886, p. 83) says five lithographs of these drawings were made at Bineteau’s about the year 1836, but 
that after a few proofs had been struck off the drawings were effaced from the stones before any titles were engraved. 
He compared these proofs with Galindo’s originals, which were still in the archives of the Société de Geographie in 
1886. 

2Galindo, 18354, p. 545. 

“Many may smile at our ideas of the word antiquity, when informed that this place has fallen to ruin only 
since the Spanish Conquest in 1530” (Galindo, 18354, p. 545); and again, “The Spaniards found Copan inhabited 
and in the summit of its perfection.” (Jdid., p. 549.) And again, ‘Copan continued to be inhabited, even after 
the conquest, but in a state of perpetual decadence. Some 75 years ago [circa 1760] the cultivation of tobacco 
was brought from there to the plains of Santa Rosa, and the population gradually decreased to a village of three 
houses situated to the west of the Sesesmil canyon [the site of the present village], which formerly comprised 
the western suburb of the city.” (Appendix XI, p. 603.) 

4“T am the only one, he said, who has examined the ruins of Copan, and who has written about them.” 
(Galindo, 1836a, p. 73.) 

5Galindo, 18354, p. 548. 


20 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


see the 5 in the Great Plaza, A, B, D, F, and H, and the 2 on or near the 
Acropolis, N and P, which leaves J as the one he missed. Stela J stands 
off to one side by itself (see plate 6), and when the entire city was over- 
grown, as in Galindo’s time, it could very easily have been overlooked. 
Four years later Stephens made the same omission. 

The several descriptions of Copan noted up to this point not only had a 
very limited circulation, as we have seen, but were also brief and superficial, 
scarcely more than mentioning the wonders of the place. Indeed, the only 
published accounts of the ruins prior to Stephens’s time were those of Juarros 
and Galindo, which do not appear to have attracted general attention. 
Moreover, they contain nothing of importance not given in greater detail 
by later writers, and they have been included here chiefly for bibliographic 
purposes. 

The first writer to make the ruins of Copan generally known outside of 
Central America was the American diplomat, traveler, and explorer, John 
L. Stephens; and for practical purposes his excellent description of the city 
has all the value and merit of original discovery. 

Stephens was sent to Central America, in October 1839, on a special 
confidential mission by President Van Buren, the object of which having 
been fulfilled, or failing, he was at liberty to travel where he pleased. He 
visited a number of important archeological sites in the Maya field, notably 
Uxmal, Palenque, Ocosingo, Santa Cruz Quiché, and Copan, and published a 
fascinating account of his adventures, entitled Jncidents of Travel in Central 
America, Chiapas, and Yucatan. He was accompanied by the English 
artist Catherwood, who made the illustrations for this book, original drawings 
of great merit and beauty. Rarely indeed has such a happy combination of 
circumstances arisen as that which permitted these two men to work 
together; rarely has the brush so effectively supplemented the pen—so effec- 
tively, in fact, that Stephens’s text illuminated with Catherwood’s drawings 
has remained the classic book of travel on the Maya field for more than three- 
quarters of acentury. It was one of the most widely read books of its time 
in this country and went through ten editions within three months of its 
publication. It was republished in England, Germany, and Mexico, and 
achieved great popularity abroad. Its astonishing success would seem to 
have been due, not only to the simple and clear style of Stephens’s writing and 
the quaint charm of Catherwood’s drawings, but also to the unusual and 
diverting character of the subject-matter. Here for the first time the world 
read of the wonders of the great ruined cities of Central America and saw 
reproductions of their strange monuments; and here for the first time the 
fundamental importance of this great native civilization in the history of the 
New World began to be perceived. The many editions of this book and 
its sequel, /ncidents of Travel in Yucatan, accurately reflect the widespread 
interest which they aroused. 

Stephens, as already noted, gave the first description of Copan which 
attained a general circulation. He not only disproved the fabulous stories 





Pe 


ah yt “vate oF ' ; ,, 
yn pain ee 









my | O this ns ie 
“h, but 8 Doin 
Wer thot 9 
Nderg of € also brief uly had 
tens Super 
Ste h ace Iclal 
: Phens's times, , the “ 
lay I ) 
Rais acted p Ju 
¢ nee . t oy, 
iclud ® Not Riven | or tention, 
ed her chief ater detail 


merica, in ( Gctahi 1839, on a special 


N Buren, the object of which having 
erty to travel ‘iii he pleased. He 
| gical sites in the Maya field, notably 
12 Quiché, and Copan, and published a 
entitled /ncidents of Travel in Central 
e was accompanied by the English 
rations for this book, original drawings 
Jeed has such a happy combination 0! af 
mitted these two men to Wor 


mented the pen—s0 etler 
vatherwood’s drawings 


ava field for more thai three 


per 
ively hes 





1ccu le ~ hich 





ee 

















Si (WB Pr 
My Sire 2 
NEN : a) WZ 
_ MES NY. 
“Ww 7 78 ae les ay 7 \ 
, : s < OES. ~ ‘\ 3 = 1. " 


\ LA ae 
LLANO GRANDE, Ni 71? 2 


Re 
Zig a Sa 


Ws 
She Wy, mite Fur, 


AW Wi oy cae a Nunes Ee é 










































> ny) al My Me 
S \, 4 \ Z = 
AN Z ye EM “ai, Z Cee: A\ 
= : Wy: Any Bw, aS ING 
Z = NY "he Wye : i % Y/ Nee il) Yi TAN Y = GNIS 
eee Mel's REY) VE or AX yi 
SWS ZY SHEE MIN NEE ENV , 
N SVS WEE Fie we We 
TS FL <I) VALINE « q == 
Ke eee ANS ZS 
MWe IwTZ,”. YK \~ 2 Me ies & Fy 1p 
oot A INST M acs Se eS 2 ms 
; Maye MWY SW Exe 5 an | 
Ww < \: ie Sy 
5 We = Z 
a3 Ye x e\S2 7 t Zee) \ y 
“e ~ ee E 
\ = yas = 2 INS “a {« i i Nis 
WY% wis * BS CAINS 
45 eos <i NS 
Ss “Wy = S Ss oN NS 
\ ie. Xx ‘$ *y 
Sy ae 
= = Ass 
we = om we 
we Zap Ee 
NS == 3S Iw 
ESSE yA SS oe 
Ewe vm Fy Ze. Silk 
2 i mea y iz, INS > : SS 
. IS ow & iS AN SSS = <7 
“ S « \v\ = = 
“0, : S See WS S 4 
= 5 SS SS: xf \ aS SCT aa Z 
sae % INS & WS 2 ahs bite Mr ZINE WLS Se EG 
ac \X IW S wer Vy SiS IX “an =< yi) : x Zz 
ST0 MS SS os WS 2 ee iy jf iB hos 
‘So =~ 3 Wz ly <a eS RAN wi, A, RS 
<a, i ee wes a SS . 3 
* < = Tf fe FZ 
are WS we = Z Mei é XA 
: we 7 V/ Ely, , TiN =i \ “ Zs 
i. 4 Y s = NS Wgz Be A 
aS xy we i 7 Tee Wes wi a =< aS ANY, in SS 
= — i] 2! = y Y Fi nd < AS M7 ts IN Si f “ih vie 
= Wass Fi a) |S ( ‘ ( iN ae 
wr ots uy Y i ie = x yy WN iM W, . — i 
& EON “4, « Sv "2 ¥§ AVG = 
= oe Sang 2, hod Wy ZB& rs Se JSS S LYS Ne 
INS = . n& YS z= i & SS My, WCC. y WJ (4 gt 
 £ SAV \ Uf SV a x W a Z 
SSeS > Zz = - ef I an ae az 
z Wc & RS Gi. Pont Nit t= Sa Ton £ Zs, Rate 
GW Oy me Sf SESE TN WS JSF Z7Z 
ae. < ahs Ning By Ly i Kees 
—s = ut Ss ‘ : WF LQ, MY, U, 1! < 
L\ NE SS = SA wo 2 /: 





eS 


Ss ve “& ue 
aw ®t, War * IM cS 


Kai ® WZ 
Ss 3 WES 


Ce 











Iw SY NF SS sae 
Ae | ny ‘gu Ps Roe ‘Se Foye x a A 
WG A in WKAR SNE 
4 in Sa oF 4 one ‘sa FINI ~ Aw ge ¥ re 
"Gy JEM net TN Ma * Zing > ic I\ Ee ite 
 \-. MZ ce ai ASS Ri os ee de aoe : 
caN Zin VU Go EN \ 8 oaesn vie 
- WS INNS eexereny § 
= 2 SAW , 2&," 
y 4 I) airy. ' ), NOR = iz Vast 
cal Hy: Wy a wes i see ee ay Wy Pf | ys Wh, WA 
ZY n\ AW. \ Uj Wh: N\ Mu? a We, Ne \ ly ¢,., al Wt wi Atha WW vy * MW 
y Mh ( | “ly \ili/ Al Wy, Ally ey 7 4 uf MY 
P<, — AW aA NN l y SYS Pty Wy ly 
Wie” WY Wy ‘ val 
ih " NAN \ ag oA Ins N\ Y WY : ae nay Nts My AN oe 


Yr», Wen ly psi <p \W\) The Wy; Wye le, th pr 4 


‘ly 7 \S uy) es " 
VF AN NV WW we Ww Xue MY XY) Ap ‘I ZB . 
Wo \' yy uA cs te i WW y\ Wy WW ) Ws al MW, ty aq 
iR\\ ly N pea ine > ay if : MA, Ww Yigh ) ae 4) Wy wh y I WW tN ARTA i We 


Ss Stine 


Map ot 





HISTORY* OF (THE? SITE. 21 


of Fuentes y Guzman, but at the same time succeeded in investing the 
ruins with an even greater charm and mystery, all the more remarkable 
because he told the truth. Although he missed the real significance of much 
that he saw, for example, failing to recognize in the overgrown mounds the 
remains of fallen buildings, and although he was unable to decipher the 
hieroglyphic inscriptions, that discovery being reserved for another genera- 
tion, Stephens acutely gauged the importance of what he saw and left behind 
him a vivid and glowing description of its wonders, which will stimulate 
research in this field for all time. 

After the visit of Stephens there appears to have been no important 
original contribution to the knowledge of the site for nearly 40 years. 
Bancroft, in his Native Races of the Pacific States, gives a description of Copan 
based chiefly on that of Stephens, and in an accompanying bibliography he 
notes the names of several visitors, none of whom, however, seems to have left 
behind any important contribution to the Gterature of the site. 

In 1877 a German engineer, Meye, visited Copan and made drawings 
of a few of the principal sculptures, as well as the map of the site already 
mentioned. ‘These were published with an introductory text by Dr. Julius 
Schmidt, which contains little essential information not already given by 
Stephens and much that might better have been omitted. It lacks the 
interest of Stephens and the accuracy of later writers. Meye’s drawings 
are equally unsatisfactory. Only five of the stele are figured (A, D, N, F, 
and H) and three of the independent altars (U, Q, and T). No one of these 
is complete, and in all cases the faces showing the inscriptions have been 
omitted. Moreover, he has failed signally to catch the spirit of the originals, 
and for all purposes Catherwood’s drawings, although made nearly 40 
years earlier, are far better.’ 

The first intensive study of Copan was made by the English explorer, 
Alfred P. Maudslay, in 1885. Four years earlier, in January 1881, he had 
spent three days at the site, on “a journey of curiosity,” and was so impressed 
with what he saw that he was induced to undertake its scientific investiga- 
tion. His own words clearly set forth the happy chance which resulted in 
the inauguration of this important research, and they are quoted below: 


“‘My first journey through the Central-American forests in search of the ruins 
of ancient Indian towns, during the winter of 1882—83* [1880-1881], was merely 





1Bancroft, 1882, vol. Iv, pp. 78-81. Squier gives but scant notice to Copan, simply stating that important 
aboriginal remains are found there. (Squier, 1858, pp. 241, 242, and 1855, p. 133.) Scherzer was deterred from vis- 
iting the ruins in 1856 by the padre of Santa Rosa, who told him a recent landslip had much injured their appear- 
ance. (Scherzer, 1857, vol. 11, pp. 86, 87, 94,95.) Brasseur de Bourbourg says a French Jesuit, Cornette, visited 
the site in September of the same year (Brasseur de Bourbourg, 1857-1859, vol. 1, p. 96, note 3); and in the same 
work (vol. 11, p. 493, note 2) mentions having seen plans and drawings of Copan and other Maya cities by a French 
architect, M. César Daly, which the latter intended to publish in the Revue Générale de l’Architecture, which does 
not appear to have been done. Bancroft mentions additional slight information given before the American 
Ethnological Society in February 1860 by a Mr. Center, and in April 1862 by a Mr. Hardcastle, the latter based on 
original notes gathered during a sojourn of several weeks at the ruins. Brasseur de Bourbourg himself visited 
Copan twice, once in 1863 and again in 1866, but made only brief allusions to the ruins in his writings (18674, tom. 
ii, pp. 298-311). Finally, in addition to the foregoing, there are a number of second-hand descriptions based 
upon the accounts of Juarros, Galindo, and Stephens, chiefly the last, which contain little or no new information. 

2See Schmidt, 1883. 

8This is probably an error for the winter of 1880-1881, as he states elsewhere, several times, that he first visited 
Copan and Quirigua in January 1881. 


22 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


a journey of curiosity, and I had no intention whatever of making a study of Amer- 
ican archeology. However, the interest awakened by the sight of the truly won- 
derful monuments which it was my good fortune to behold induced me to undertake 
other and better-equipped expeditions, and the kindly encouragement and splendid 
liberality of the editors of the ‘Biologia Centrali-Americana’ led to the results of 
my journeys being published in the present form.”? 


In these few modest words Maudslay describes the greatest archzo- 
logical investigation ever accomplished in the Maya field and the most 
important publication by which the science has been enriched. 

Again, as in the case of Stephens and Catherwood, a rare combina- 
tion made possible the successful prosecution and completion of a second 
great work in this field. Through the generosity of F. Ducane Godman and 
Osbert Salvin, the editors of the Biologia Centrali-Americana, Maudslay 
was enabled to publish his drawings, maps, plans, elevations, and photo- 
graphs in a manner commensurate with their worth and the importance 
of the subject. ‘Thus was inaugurated a memorable undertaking which 
covered a period of 20 years (1882-1902) and which took Maudslay to 
Central America no less than seven times.” During this period he visited 
practically all the largest Maya cities then known and secured material for 
extensive reports upon several of them. It is indeed no exaggeration to say 
that the appearance of these elaborate publications made possible the inten- 
sive study of the hieroglyphic inscriptions for the first time. His method of 
treatment was ambitious, nothing less than a double presentation of practi- 
cally every monument figured, both by photograph and by drawing. In the 
latter field he was peculiarly fortunate in having secured the services of 
Miss Annie Hunter,® who for 18 years devoted herself to this task with tell- 
ing results. Her delineations of the glyphs are extremely accurate, and with 
but few exceptions (noted hereinafter where found) they may be trusted, so 
far as glyphic details are concerned, with the same degree of confidence as the 
originals themselves. ‘Their chief fault is that in many cases they are over- 
drawn, made more beautiful than the originals really are. This is particu- 
larly true of her drawings of texts from the Early and Middle Periods, when 
Maya delineation had not yet reached the perfection which it attained in the 
Great Period. Miss Hunter’s drawings are standardized to the best period 
of Maya art, and consequently those of the earlier texts have been somewhat 
overestheticized. So far as the subject-matter of the glyphs is concerned— 
that is, where the dates are perfectly clear—this makes little difference, but 
when it is necessary to depend upon the stylistic criteria for accurate dating, 
the style of the carving must be portrayed as well. With this single reserva- 
tion, Miss Hunter’s drawings are as serviceable for study as the originals 
or casts. 

Maudslay’s work at Copan covered many lines of investigation. In 
addition to the magnificent set of photographs and drawings of the monu- 





1Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. il. 
21881, 1882, 1883, 1885, 1889, 1891, 1894. 
3A few of the earlier drawings are from the hand of Mr. E. Lambert, who also did excellent work. 


HISTORY OF THE SITE. 23 


ments, published in the Biologia Centrali-Americana, which was noted above 
as being the first reproduction of the Maya inscriptions sufficiently accurate 
to permit their intensive study, he found time to mold the most important 
sculptures, to carry on extensive excavations, and to survey and map the 
Main Structure.? 

Although Stephens was the first to suspect that the town called Copan, 
conquered in 1530 by Hernando de Chaves, was not the same as the great 
ruined city now known by that name,’ it was Maudslay who finally exposed 
this error. As early as Garcia de Palacio’s time, 7.¢., within a generation of the 
Spanish Conquest, the city was in ruins, and Garcia de Palacio himself states 
“that they could never have been built by the natives of that province.” 
The attempt to identify the town conquered by Chaves in 1530 with the 
ruins of the same name was first made by Fuentes y Guzman, as we have 
seen, and was later followed blindly by Juarros and Galindo, who are chiefly 
responsible for the general dissemination of this erroneous idea. 

Maudslay’s work at Copan proved—as in fact Garcia de Palacio actually 
had written three centuries earlier—that the site must have been in ruins 
long before the Spanish Conquest. He ably presents this view in the follow- 
ing quotation, which, although written more than 30 years ago, still ex- 
presses the result of the latest investigations on this point: 

“Only one conclusion appears possible, which is, that Copan, Quirigua, Palen- 
que, Menche,® and Tikal were all deserted and buried in the forest before the 
Spaniards entered the country, and that the great tract of country over which these 
ruins are scattered was then inhabited by such races as the Itzaes and the inhabit- 
ants of Chacujal, who, if they were the descendants of the builders of these wonder- 


ful pueblos, had lost the power, the skill, and the culture to which these broken 
sculptures and ruined edifices alone bear witness.” 


Maudslay visited Copan thrice, the first time for three days in 1881; 
the second time for five months in 1885, when the greater part of his work 
was done; and the third time for three weeks in 1894 for the Peabody Museum 





1Maudslay’s plan of the Main Structure appears in vol. 1, plate 1 of his work mentioned above, plates 2 and 3 
showing birds-eye views of a plaster relief map of the same. Maudslay also published a plan of the Main Structure, a 
sketch-map of part of the valley (showing the Main Structure and Group 9), and several cross-sections of the 
Acropolis, in the Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society for 1886. See Maudslay, 1886, 568-595, 608. 

2Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, pp. 99, IOI, 160. 

3This important site has been known under several different names. Rockstroh, the first European to visit the 
place, called it Menché Tinamit, Menché being the name of a former Indian chief of the region, Bol Menché, and 
Tinamit or Tenamitl, the Nahua word for “city.”” (Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 11 of text, p. 40, and vol. 11, plate 76.) 
This name, as Maler points out, is unsatisfactory because the two parts are derived from different languages, 
Menché or Mehenche, “young forest,” being Maya, and Tinamit, or Tenamitl, Nahuatl. Maler himself suggests 
the name Yaxchilan (1903, p. 105), a Maya word yax, meaning “greer.,” and chilan, “that which is scattered about’”’ 
and by extension, “stones,” hence Yaxchilan, “green stones.” (Maler, 1903, p. 104, note I.) This is the name by 
which the site is now generally known, not only in the immediate vicinity, but also in this country, and moreover 
has the merit of being of pure Maya origin. 

Maudslay, who follows Rockstroh here, takes exception to Spinden’s use of Yaxchilan (1913, pp. 242, 243), 
on the grounds that the discoverer should have the privilege of naming the site. This, though true as a general 
proposition, should not be allowed to apply when linguistic propriety is in question, and Maler’s name Yaxchilan 
appears preferable to Menché Tinamit. ; 

As early as 1885, Charnay named this site Lorillard City (Charnay, 1887, p. 436) in honor of Pierre Lorillard of 
New York, who partly defrayed the expenses of his work. This inappropriate name did not become fixed in the 
nomenclature of the science, however, and now is all but forgotten. 

4Maudslay, 1886, p. 591. Gordon, writing a decade later, reaches a similar conclusion. (Gordon, 1896, p. 3.) 


24 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


of Harvard University. To describe all his activities at Copan alone would 
carry us beyond the limits of the present investigation; moreover, in order pro- 
perly to appreciate them, it is not only necessary to see the finished product, 
the section on archeology of the Biologia Centrali-Americana, but also to 
understand the tremendous difficulties of climate, of country, and of political 
disturbance which stood in the way of their fulfillment. Indeed, Maudslay’s 
indefatigable labors, covering many years in an adverse environment, easily 
constitute the most important field contribution to Maya archeology. 

We come next to the third great contribution to the knowledge of 
Copan, namely, the work of the Peabody Museum of American Archeology 
and Ethnology of Harvard University. This research, which contemplated 
an exhaustive and definitive investigation of the site, was inaugurated in 1891 
through the efforts of the Curator, Frederic W. Putnam, and C. P. Bowditch. 
Unfortunately, at the conclusion of the Fourth Expedition in 1895, when 
the most promising results from the excavations were just beginning to be 
realized, the government of Honduras abruptly revoked the edict under 
which the Museum had been working, thereby terminating the investigation, 
which was never resumed.” | 

The work of the Peabody Museum at Copan is of first importance. In 
spite of the fact that it was unhappily interrupted almost before it had 
gotten under way, the four expeditions undertaken resulted in the accumu- 
lation of an enormous amount of new material. Many new monuments 
were found, which were photographed and molded;* and extensive excava- 
tions were undertaken, which resulted in the discovery of new inscriptions,‘ 


1Maudslay has written several shorter articles on his work at Copan, the titles of which will be found in the 
bibliography. A larger work is his 4 Glimpse at Guatemala and some Notes on the Ancient Monuments of Central 
America (see Maudslay, A. C. and A. P., 1899), which was written in collaboration with his wife. 

2In 1889 Mr. E. W. Perry obtained from the government of Honduras a concession to found a National 
Museum of Antiquities at Copan, and a Society of Antiquarians of which he was to be the permanent president. 
This project was never realized, but in 1891 Mr. C. P. Bowditch obtained all the rights pertainimg to Mr. Perry 
through this concession. ‘This arrangement proving impracticable, a new plan was proposed to President Bogran 
of:Honduras, which was accepted, and an edict was promulgated under the terms of which the Peabody Museum 
acquired the care of the antiquities of the republic for a period of 10 years, with the additional right of excavation 
and permission to retain half of the objects found. Under this liberal arrangement work was begun at once. The 
First Expedition (1891-92) was in charge of Mr. Marshall H. Saville; the Second Expedition (1892-93) was in 
charge of Mr. John G. Owens; the Third Expedition (1893-94) was in charge of Mr. Alfred P. Maudslay; and the 
Fourth Expedition (1894-95), in which the American Museum of Natural History also participated, was in charge 
of Dr. G. B. Gordon. 

In 1894 there was a change of administration in Honduras, President Bogran, who had always been very 
friendly to the Copan project, giving way to a new administration which at first annulled the Bogran edict, but 
later reafirmed it. However, it became impracticable for the Museum to prosecute the research any longer, and exca- 
vation was suspended after the Fourth Expedition. With the close of this project there came to an end the most 
ambitious investigation of a single site ever attempted in the Maya field. The opening years were of such promise 
as to raise great expectation for the future, and the untimely conclusion came as a severe blow to the science, from 
which it has recovered but slowly. ; 

®In his report on the work of the First Expedition, Saville mentions 24 stela, of which 19 were previously known. 
The 5 new stele discovered by the First Expedition would seem to have been 6, 7, 8,9, and 11. Saville reported 
8 stele standing in 1892: A, B, D, F, H, J, N, and P; 13 stelz fallen and broken: C, E, I, M, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 
11, and 12; and 3 fallen but entire: 6, 8, and 9. Stela 6 has been broken since. Gordon (1896, p. 33) says 
there are 23 monuments known—he omits stela 12—of which 15 are in, or about, the Great Plaza: A, B, C, D, E, 
F, H, I, J, M, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11. The remaining 8 he gives are N, P, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, and 10. Stele 13, 15, 16, 
and 19 would seem to have been discovered by the Third or Fourth Expedition. 

4The Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26, the hieroglyphic step in Temple 21a, and the hieroglyphic step on the 
reviewing stand in the Western Court should be included here. 


HISTORY OF THE SITE. 25 


pottery, stone implements, and ornaments of stone and carved bone... A 
wall was built around the Main Structure to protect it from the cattle roam- 
ing over the valley,’ and finally the Main Structure itself was again surveyed 
and mapped by Gordon, and data for a map of the entire valley was secured.’ 
Incidental to these latter activities, the monuments throughout the valley 
were given their final nomenclature,* and the mounds at the Main Structure 
their final numeration. 

The photographic record made by the several Peabody Museum expedi- 
tions is unusually complete, though unfortunately only a very small part of 
it has been published.®> ‘These rich repositories of new material have been 
generously placed at the writer’s disposal by Mr. C. C. Willoughby, the 
Director of the Museum, and Dr. A. M. Tozzer, Curator of Middle American 
Archeology and Ethnology. 

No review of the work of the Peabody Museum at Copan would be 
complete without some reference to the untimely death of Mr. John G. 
Owens, director of the Second Expedition. While visiting the coast to make 
arrangements for obtaining molds of the Quirigua monuments, he contracted 
a malignant fever of the country. Two days after his return to Copan he 
fell violently ill, and after a brave struggle lasting 21 days, he finally suc- 
cumbed to the disease on February 17, 1893. This tragic event has cast a 
perpetual mantle of sadness over the ruins, and standing by his simple 
grave, at the base of one of the monuments in the Great Plaza, one is deeply 
sensible of the heavy loss occasioned by his removal, and of the memory of 
a pioneer who died on the firing line.® 

The results of these several investigations at Copan may be briefly sum- 
marized as follows: Stephens first made the site generally known, Maudslay 
first began its preliminary scientific study, and finally the Peabody Museum 
first undertook its intensive investigation, the work of the last being a contin- 
uation and development of the work of the second. ‘To Stephens, Maudslay, 





1The excavations at Copan, particularly of the tombs, yielded a satisfactory return of objects. Anumber of 
different types of pottery were found, including plain, painted, incised, modeled, and even glazed wares. Beads, pen- 
dants, and ear-plugs of jadeite (or nephrite,) and shell were recovered in great numbers, many delicately carved with 
considerable skill. Obsidian and flint knives of different sizes, spear points, carved bones, and animal skulls, human 
teeth filled with jadeite, bone implements, cinnabar, pearls, and sea-shells were some of the other objects found during 
the course of the work. The collection of pottery obtained, although not large, is fairly representative, and its 
intensive study, particularly that of the dated pieces—1.¢., pieces found in the chambers underneath dated monu- 
ments—would doubtless shed much light on the history and development of Maya ceramics. 

2Unfortunately the function of this laborious construction has been directly reversed. The cattle are now 
kept inside the inclosure made by this wall instead of outside; in other words, it is now used as a corral, defeating the 
very end for which it was designed. 

3This appeared in Gordon, 1898), p. 141, and is the only map of the entire valley which has ever been published. 

4Except those discovered or named subsequent to 1895. See Appendix III for a full discussion of the nomen- 
clature of the Copan monuments. 

5The Peabody Museum has published three papers by Gordon on the work at Copan, as follows: Prehistoric 
Ruins of Copan, Honduras, Mem. Pea. Mus., vol. 1, No. 1, see Gordon, 1896; Caverns of Copan, Mem. Pea. Mus., 
vol. 1, No. 5, see Gordon, 1898); and The Hieroglyphic Stairway Ruins of Copan, Mem. Pea. Mus., vol. 1, No. 6, 
see Gordon, 1902. In addition to the foregoing, Gordon has written several other scientific and popular articles, 
see Gordon, 1898, 18984, 1899, 1902a, 19024, 1909, 1913, 1916, and 1918, and Saville has also written several 
others. See Saville, 1892, 1892a, 1894, and 1916. 

6Owens was. buried in front of the altar of Stela D in the Great Plaza. A plain flat cement monument sur- 
rounded by a rough stone wall marks the grave. When the writer and Mr. Morris were at Copan, in 1912, they 
placed a headstone in the inclosure with the following inscription: “J.G.Owens. Died February 1893. A Martyr 
to Science.” 


26 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


and the Peabody Museum, indeed, we are indebted for practically all that 
was known about Copan until within the past decade. 

Since the close of these larger operations, the site has been more gener- 
ally known and more frequently visited, particularly during the last 10 
years. No important contributions to its special literature, however, have 
appeared during this period, with the notable exception of Dr. H. J. Spinden’s 
work on Maya Art, which, because of its fundamental character, deserves 
especial mention here. In 1906 Spinden first began an intensive investiga- 
tion of the subject-matter and general principles of Maya Art; and three 
years later, in 1909, in a thesis presented to Harvard University for the 
doctorate, he was able to establish the course of its development and to 
arrange the monuments in a stylistic sequence which was found to agree 
precisely with the sequence of the dates actually recorded upon them. 

The results of Spinden’s researches were first announced in a chrono- 
logical table published by the American Museum of Natural History in July 
1910;! next before the Seventeenth International Congress of Americanists, 
held in Mexico City in September of the same year, in a brief preliminary 
paper,’ and more fully in 4 Study of Maya Art, its subject-matter and historical 
development, published by the Peabody Museum three years later.* Spinden 
first established his stylistic sequence from a study of the Copan sculptures, 
which are more extensive than those of any other Maya site, but the princi- 
ples of development, first worked out here, have since been found to apply 
throughout the Maya field. ‘This important discovery at once quickened the 
coordinate study of Maya chronology. It had long been held by the leading 
authorities that the closing dates on the different monuments, at least in 
the great majority of cases, correspond with the dates of their erection— 
in a word, that these terminal dates were the contemporaneous dates of the 
monuments upon which they were severally recorded.4| The accuracy of 
this view was speedily confirmed by Spinden’s discovery, for it was soon 
found that when the monuments of any site are arranged according to their 
proper positions in the stylistic sequence (the least advanced first, the most 
advanced last) the resulting sequence is identical with the chronological 
sequence, the earliest dates being found on the crudest monuments and the 
latest dates on those stylistically most developed. 

Indeed, Spinden’s stylistic criteria have proved so reliable that by this 
means alone it is now generally possible to date monuments as within fixed 
periods of 52 years in length, even when portions of the inscriptions are 
effaced. ‘This has been of great help in determining the age of fragmentary 

1Spinden, 1910. 2Tbid., 1912. 3Jbid., 1913. 

‘Goodman, than whom no one has done more toward deciphering the Maya inscriptions, held this opinion in 
part. He believed the Initial Series declared the contemporaneous dates of the monuments, and in many cases 
it is true that they do. (Goodman, 1897, pp. 147, 148.) Seler reaches a similar conclusion (1902-1908, vol. 1, 
pp. 783, 784). Thomas regards the theory of Goodman and Seler as the best yet propounded, but accepts it 
with considerable caution; indeed, he suggests an amendment, namely, that the theory be slightly more generalized 
so as to apply to the latest date in the inscripton (7. ¢., not only the Initial Series date) as that denoting the time 


of erection or event commemorated, which is the view now generally held (1904, p. 299). See also Bowditch, 
19034, P. 3. 


HISTORY OF THE SITE. 27 


texts, since, from the exigencies of the Maya chronological system and the 
elaborate character of their chronological records, such as the presence of 
several sets of checking factors, for example, an inscription has to be almost 
entirely obliterated to prevent its being dated to within at least a fixed period 
of 52 years. 

By means of the stylistic criteria it has also been possible to correct 
some of the earlier readings. Thus, for example, Goodman! deciphered the 
date of Stela D as 9.5.5.0.0, an impossibly early date for this monument 
on stylistic grounds. Seler? subsequently re-read the date correctly as 
g.15.5.0.0, but it remained for Spinden to authenticate this latter reading 
by means of the stylistic criteria present. 

That the Maya monuments were, as a general rule, erected on or near 
the closing dates recorded upon them is now generally recognized’—that is, 
their contemporaneous character is now generally admitted—but it should 
be remembered that final proof of this important point was not forthcoming 
until the stylistic sequence was shown to agree with the chronologic sequence. 

The writer first began his study of the Maya inscriptions in 1905, but 
it was not until five years later that he began to collect material in the field 
for a special study of the Copan inscriptions. In rg1o he visited Copan for 
two days, in behalf of the School of American Archeology, with Dr. E. L. 
Hewett, the Director, and Mr. J. L. Nusbaum; at this time, however, little 
more than a preliminary examination of the inscriptions was attempted. 
He was at Copan again in 1912 with Mr. Earl Morris, for the same institu- 
tion, when a more detailed study was undertaken, but at the end of the first 
week he was taken ill and obliged to leave immediately after his recovery.* 
In 1915 he again visited Copan in company with Mr. Percy Adams, this time 
in the interest of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. The expedition 
stayed at the site for six weeks, when by far the greater part of the new 
material in this volume was collected.° 

He was at the site for a week in 1916, being accompanied by Dr. G. Under- 
hill and Mr. A. W. Carpenter, the physician and photographer of the expedi- 
tion, respectively, and by two temporary collaborators, Mr. W. H. Holmes, 
Head Curator of Anthropology at the United States National Museum, and 
Mr. S. K. Lothrop, of Harvard University.° The panorama of the site shown 
in the frontispiece was made by Mr. Holmes at this time, and was kindly 
placed at the writer’s disposal for use herein. It gives a better general con- 








1Goodman, 1897, p. 130. 

*Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 768-771. 

3The so-called “‘prophetic’”’ dates, like those on Altar S and Stela 8, to mention only inscriptions at Copan, 
are exceptions to this general rule. 

4These two visits were made in connection with a much larger piece of work, namely, the excavation of the 
neighboring ruins of Quirigua, Guatemala. This important project was inaugurated in 1910, and five expeditions 
have visited the site to date: 1910, 1911, 1912, 1914, and 1919, the first four being under the auspices of the School 
of American Archeology and the last under the Carnegie Institution. Several new inscriptions were found, 
Stela S, Altar R, and the inscribed cornice and steps of Structure 1. See Hewett, 1911, pp. 117-134; 1912, pp. 
163-171; 1916, pp. 157-162; Morley, 1912, pp. 96, 97, 1913, pp. 339-361, and 1919, pp. 317-321. 

5See Morley, 19154, pp. 343-346. 

See ibid., 19164, pp. 337-341. 


28 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


ception of the city than can be obtained from a personal examination on the 
grounds. 

In 1917 he was at Copan for four days with Mr. John Held, jr., as artist 
and draftsman,' again in 1918 for two days,” and again in 1919 for four days,’ 
the last two trips being made without assistants. 

All the writer’s notes on the Copan inscriptions accumulated during 
these seven different visits have been embodied in the present study— 
those made in 1910 and 1912, as well as those made in 1915-1919 for the 
Carnegie Institution, and acknowledgment is here made to the Managing 
Board of the School of American Archeology for permission to include the 
work of the first two years in this final report. 


HISTORY OF THE DECIPHERMENT OF THE MAYA HIEROGLYPHIC WRITING. 


Before attempting to define the scope of the present investigation (see 
the next section), it is first necessary to review the history of the decipherment 
of the Maya hieroglyphic writing, for it is only from that perspective that 
the especial province of this research can be properly comprehended. 

From Stephens’s time down to the present day, the Maya hieroglyphic 
writing, probably the foremost intellectual achievement of ancient America, 
has been a storm-center of scientific investigation. Perhaps no other problem 
connected with American archeology has excited so much attention or 
provoked so much ill-considered speculation. The Maya themselves have 
been variously derived from the ancient Egyptians; from the Ten Lost 
Tribes of Israel; from the Javanese; and even from the visionary folk of 
fabled Atlantis;* but it has only been within the past three decades that we 
have at last begun to know something definite about them, partially to 
decipher the intricate characters of their strange graphic system, and to 
approximate its general meaning. ; 

The basic discovery upon which rests all subsequent research in this 
field was the finding of a manuscript history of Yucatan in the archives of 


1See Morley, 1917¢, pp. 285-289. See ibid., 1918a, pp. 269-276. 3See ibid., 1919, pp. 320, 321. 

4The origin of the Maya civilization has been a fruitful field of inquiry since the days of the Spanish Conquest, 
when the conquistadores first beheld the great aboriginal cities of Middle America; and there is scarcely a country 
on the face of the globe which has not at one time or another been identified as the original home of the Maya race. 
From Lord Kingsborough’s nine large folio volumes, which sought to prove that the Maya were descended from the 
Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, down to the present time, innumerable earnest but misguided attempts have been made 
to derive the Maya directly from some nation or people of the Old World. Some indeed have even gone so far as to 
reverse this at least natural procedure, and have contended that Egypt was colonized from America, claiming for 
the Maya an antiquity of more than 11,000 years (Le Plongeon, 1886). Unfortunately, such aberrations as these 
have not entirely disappeared before the advance of modern research, since we find within the past decade earnest 
searchers after the truth solemnly connecting the Maya civilization with the comparatively recent cultures of Java 
and southern India (Arnold and Frost, 1909), or, by more or less circuitous routes of migration, with the equally 
remote civilization of ancient Egypt. (Smith, 1916-1917, pp. 190-195, 241-246.) The last even contends that 
the elephant’s head occurs as a decorative element on Stela B at Copan, (1915-1916, pp. 340, 341, 425, 593-595). 
He has been ably refuted by Tozzer (1916, p. 592), Spinden (1916, pp. 592, 593), Goldenweiser (1916, pp. 531-533), 
and Means (1916, pp. 533, 534). Such extravagant hypotheses would scarcely merit even passing notice were it 
not for the fact that their very spectacularity renders them peculiarly attractive to the general public. It is, 
therefore, perhaps not superfluous to repeat that the Maya civilization was a native American product, developed 
in its entirety in the New World, and probably not far from the region where its extensive remains are now to be 
found. 


i 


MORLEY PLATE 4 





a. General view of the Main Structure looking east, showing the plain covered with 
the remains of stone buildings. 





b. General view of the Main Structure looking south from the hill near the quarries. 


Courtesy of the Peabody Museum 


P 
7 





HISTORY OF DECIPHERMENT OF MAYA HIEROGLYPHIC WRITING. 29 


~ 


the Royal Academy of History at Madrid in 1863. In the winter of that 
year the eminent French antiquarian, Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, while 
on a scientific mission to Spain, found in the archives of that establishment a 
manuscript entitled Relacién de las cosas de Yucatan, sacada de la que escribié 
el padre Fray Diego de Landa de la orden de San Francisco, and bearing the 
date MpLxvI.'_ The author of this manuscript was no less a person than the 
Padre Diego de Landa, who later became the fourth bishop of the Diocese 
of Yucatan and Cozumel with seat at Merida, and who filled that see from 
1573 until the time of his death in 1579.2, He was one of the first Franciscans 
to enter Yucatan (1549) and one of the most zealous in converting the Indians 
from their idolatry. His zeal in this latter direction eventually brought him 
into difficulties with his ecclesiastical superior, Bishop Toral, who accused 
him of usurping higher functions than were his right; and he later returned 
to Spain and appeared before the Council of the Indies to answer the charges 
growing out of this controversy. He was tried before a body of ‘‘seven 
learned persons of the Kingdom of Toledo,” in 1565, and was finally exon- 
erated of all the charges against him in 1569. On the retirement of Bishop 
Toral, four years later, he was named to succeed to the vacant see, which he 
occupied until his death in 1579, as noted above.’ 

The especial value of Landa’s “relacion,” a veritable Maya Rosetta 
Stone indeed, lies in the fact that it was composed during the first generation 
after the Spanish Conquest, 1541-1566; and the information which it contains 
was obtained by him directly from natives who had reached mental maturity 
under their own social, political, and religious institutions before the shock of 
European conquest had forever shattered the native régime. Indeed, Landa 
actually states that one of his informants was Don Juan Cocom, a lineal 
descendant of the last ruler of Mayapan, and a man particularly well versed 
in the ancient learning of his people.t| And with such information as this 

1This valuable manuscript has been thrice published, as follows: (1) By the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg with a 
French translation, Paris, 1864. (2) By Juan de Dios de la Rada y Delgado, Madrid, 1881, as an Appendix to his 
Ensayo sobre la interpretacion de la escritura hieratica de la America Central, a translation into Spanish, of Leon de 
Rosny’s work of the same name. (3) By the Royal Academy of History, Madrid, in the Coleccién de Documentos 
Inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, conquista y organizacion de las antiguas posesiones espanolas de ultramar, Segunda 
serie, tom. 13, Relaciones de Yucatan, II, Madrid, 1900. Of these, the first is by far the poorest; Brinton, in a 
critical comparison of the first two editions (1887), points out its shortcomings. Brasseur de Bourbourg omits, 
without a word of explanation, fully one-sixth of the original (the last part of the manuscript) and inserts a num- 
ber of chapter headings not found in the manuscript at all, in addition to making many errors of translation. 
The second edition is the only complete one of the three, 7. ¢., having all the text and drawings of the original manu- 
script. Unfortunately it was limited to 200 copies, all large folios, and 1s very rare. All references to Landa in 
the present work, however, are to this second and only complete edition. The third edition is not only comparatively 
rare but is also incomplete, lacking all the part describing the calendar and annual feasts, including the drawings 
of the glyphs, the katun-wheel, and Landa’s famous “alphabet.” There is an unpublished English translation by 
Bowditch in the Peabody Museum library. 


2Molina Solis (1897, pp. 13-78) reviews the evidence bearing upon the creation of the Diocese of Yucatan and 
Cozumel, which he concludes was established after 1547 and before 1553, Fray Juan de San Francisco being named __. 


the first bishop. The latter resigned before 1552, never having gone to Yucatan, in which year Fray Jig de La’ * : 
Puerta was named second bishop of the diocese. The latter died at Sevilla on the eve of his departure for,.Néw~ * 


Spain with twenty frailes, and it was not until 1562 that the third bishop, Fray Francisco de Toral, reached Merida. 
3Landa himself describes the affair at some length (1881, pp. 79, 80), and the whole controversy ha$ feen'made 
the subject of a special paper by Medina (1913, pp. 484-496). 

4 The successor of the Cocomes, named Don Juan Cocom, who has since become a Christian, was a man of 
great reputation, learned in their affairs, and of remarkable sagacity and intelligence in native matters. He was 
very intimate with the author of this book, Fray Diego de Landa, and told him many facts concerning the antiqui- 
ties.” (Landa, 1881, p. 76.) 


30 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


at his disposal, he speaks with an authority not equaled by that of any other 
early European writer. 

Landa describes the manners and customs of the Maya of Yucatan at 
considerable length, giving even a few tantalizing glimpses of their history. 
By far his most important contribution, however, is his description of the 
native calendar, in which he gives drawings of the hieroglyphs for the 20 
days of the Maya month and of 18 out of the 19 divisions of the Maya year,’ 
and also a series of signs, which he claimed were the letters of the Maya 
alphabet. The last was at once hailed with acclaim by Americanists as the 
long-sought key to the hieroglyphic writing, and a number of investigators, 
more credulous than critical, hastened into print with so-called “‘interlinear 
translations” of the texts. In every case, however, these have broken down 
under “‘higher criticism,” until it has finally become necessary to abandon 
all hope of translating the Maya inscriptions by means of the Landa alphabet, 
some even going so far as to brand it as a “Spanish fabrication.’” 

But if we must reject Landa’s alphabet in its entirety, as a phonetic key 
to the inscriptions, as now seems necessary, we are still deeply indebted to 
him for his illuminating observations on the Maya calendar, by means of 
which only we have been able partially to decipher the Maya writing. 

The first real advance in interpreting the Maya writing was made by 
Professor Ernst Foérstemann, of the Royal Library of Dresden, who in the 
decade from 1880-1890, while Maudslay was doing valuable service in the 
field, published a number of studies on a Maya hieroglyphic manuscript in 
the Royal Library at Dresden. Using Landa’s values for the day and month 
signs, Forstemann finally worked out the basic principles of Maya chro- 
nology, and in 1887 he announced the fundamental discovery that the long 
numbers of the Dresden manuscript designate particular days in Maya 
history and are all counted from the same starting-point, a sort of Maya 
birth of Christ, to borrow an analogy from our own chronology.’ 

Curiously enough, an American scholar, Mr. J. T. Goodman, of 
Alameda, California, working independently upon different subject-matter, 
1. é., the inscriptions on the monuments, and without knowledge of Forste- 
mann’s researches, duplicated the latter’s remarkable discovery a little later, 
1883-95. Forstemann seems to have made his discovery as early as April 

1. anda gives no sign for Uayeb (1881, pp. 96, 97). 

*Valentini (1880). Many have been the attempts to decipher the manuscripts by means of the Landa alphabet. 
Brasseur de Bourbourg was the first in this field (1869—1870); and he was quickly followed by others, de Rosny (1876), 
Le Plongeon (1885), La Rochefoucauld (1888), Thomas (1893), and Cresson (1892, 1892a, and 1892b). These 
various attempts to explain the Maya writing on a purely phonetic basis have entirely broken down, and at present 
this “school” has few followers. See Brinton, 1895, pp. 14-17, for an able summary of these studies. 

3F6rstemann, 1887. An English translation of this important paper was published by the Bureau of American 
Ethnology (see Forstemann, 1904, pp. 393-472). Tozzer (1907, pp. 153-159) gives a brief sketch of Férstemann’s 
life and a fairly complete bibliography. Only a few of the more important titles bearing directly on the present 
investigation, however, have been included in the bibliography at the end of this memoir. The results of his 
studies on the manuscripts are given in most complete form in his commentaries on the three codices, Férstemann, 
1901, 19024, and 1903, all three of which have been translated into English, and the first and most important, 
published as volume tv, No. 2, of the papers of the Peabody Museum (1906). He published two facsimile repro- 
ductions of the Dresden Codex (1880 and 1892), thus making this important manuscript accessible for general 


study, and also wrote a large number of shorter articles, only a few of which deal with the inscriptions and only one 
with those at Copan (1904a). His especial province, however, was the manuscripts, and here he easily ranks first. 


HISTORY OF DECIPHERMENT OF MAYA HIEROGLYPHIC WRITING. 31 


1885 ;! while Goodman, on the other hand, did not announce his results until 
1895, though his preface states that he had been at work on the inscriptions 
for 12 years prior to that date.? Perhaps the fairest solution is to recognize 
the priority of Férstemann in the field of the manuscripts and that of Good- 
man in the field of the monuments. Goodman’s preeminence in the field of 
the inscriptions, moreover, is beyond question. In addition to working out 
the Maya calendar system as used therein, he was the first to make known 
the existence of the head-variant numerals, the so-called Maya Arabic 
notation, and to identify their different values; and finally he devised his 
justly famous chronological tables, the logarithmic short-cuts of Maya 
arithmetic.’ 

As early as 1890 Maudslay had realized the importance of the first seven 
glyphs in each text, and had given them the name Initial Series, by which 
they have since been known.’ In fact, in one of the earliest plates of the 
section on archeology of the Biologia Centrali-Americana, he figured nine 
of these Initial Series together, an arrangement which clearly brought out 
their similarity.® 

Because it made accessible, for the first time, accurate copies of the 
originals, the publication of Maudslay’s work gave tremendous impetus to 
the study of the Maya inscriptions. Goodman testifies in this connection 
that it alone made possible his results; and other students were not slow 
to devote themselves to this problem, investigating not only Goodman’s 
conclusions, but also the drawings upon which they were based. Goodman’s 
report appeared in 1897, and two years later Professor Eduard Seler, o 
Berlin, published a long discussion of the Copan, Quirigua, and Palenque 
texts, based upon Maudslay’s reproductions.’ This contains little new 
material, however, Goodman having covered the ground rather completely. 

Simultaneously with the publication of Seler’s studies, Cyrus Thomas, 
of the Bureau of American Ethnology, published an extended commentary 
on Goodman’s work.’ This is a critical examination of the latter’s con- 
clusions, with which it agrees in the main. Some new points are brought 
out, but in general Goodman’s theories are sustained. The most valuable 











1“Tt was a source of special satisfaction to me that in April 1885 I was able to determine the sign for zero 
and soon afterward to discover the way in which the Mayas expressed the higher numbers, so that they can now be 
read from zero up to millions. Upon this discovery is based the largest part of my later researches.” (Férstemann, 
1894, p. 78.) And again: “In the year 1885 the reading of all Maya numbers up to millions was found here [in the 
Dresden Codex], 1887, the origin of the historical Maya reckoning was found, and also the form of the calendar date 
composed of two numbers and two hieroglyphs was recognized [7.¢., 4 Ahau 8 Cumhul],” (Férstemann, 19024, 
p. 150.) 

2Goodman, 1897, p. iii. Goodman’s results were published as the Appendix to the section on archeology, of 
the Biologia Centrali-Americana, in 1897. 

3For a brief review of the scientific and literary achievements of Goodman, see Morley, 1919a, pp. 441-445. 

4Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 40. 

5]bid., vol. 1, plate 31; also in vol. 11, plate 65, and vol. rv, plate 92. 

6Seler 1899, pp. 670-738, and 1900, pp. 188-227. These were published in the Verhandlungen der Berliner 
anthropologischen Gesellschaft for November 18, 1899, and for March 17, 1900, and later in Seler’s collected works 
(1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 712-836). There is an unpublished English translation of these articles in the Peabody 
Museum by Bowditch, who has had practically all of Seler’s works translated. 

7Thomas, 1900, pp. 693-819; also 1904, pp. 197-305. 


32 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


contributions of Thomas are rather in the field of the manuscripts than in 
that of the inscriptions. His commentaries on the codices are particularly 
valuable and in some lines parallel the work of F6rstemann.! 

Although most of his writing preceded the period of precise decipher- 
ment, Dr. D. G. Brinton, of the University of Pennsylvania, also made 
valuable contributions to the general field of Middle American archeology, 
and particularly to its aboriginal history. He published many original 
sources, the Maya Chronicles, the Annals of the Cakchiquels, etc., with 
highly illuminative notes and comments by himself, and with justice he 
may be called the “Father of Maya History,” in which field for many years 
he stood practically alone.* At one time it was the fashion to discredit 
these native chronicles and to regard them as untrustworthy and of little 
consequence, but now the whole trend of Maya research is tending toward 
their complete authentication as reliable sources for the reconstruction of 
ancient Maya history, a position taken and ably defended by Brinton 37 
years ago.® 

The work of Mr. C. P. Bowditch deserves especial mention in this 
section. It was chiefly through his instrumentality that the Peabody Mu- 
seum first entered the field of Maya archeology 30 years ago, and it has been 
largely due to his continued interest and support that investigations have 
been maintained there ever since. In addition to these activities, he has 
made important original contributions to the study of the hieroglyphic 
writing. His first paper on this subject was published in 1900, and during 
the next decade he brought out a number of articles containing much new 
information. The more important results of his researches are to be found 
in his Numeration, Calendar Systems, and Astronomical Knowledge of the Mayas, 
published in 1910, a scholarly presentation of the subject, embodying not 
only all the previous knowledge but also the fruit of his own extensive labors.‘ 





1Thomas’s writings are fairly voluminous. Most of them are to be found in various governmental publica- 
tions, chiefly those of the Bureau of American Ethnology, with which he was connected for many years. His more 
important contributions will be found in the bibliography under the following heads: Thomas, 1882, 1888, 1894, 
1897, 1900, and 1904. 

2Stephens was the first to publish one of these chronicles (1843, vol. 11, pp. 465-469). This particular 
manuscript, the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, had been discovered at Ticul, Yucatan, by the Yucatecan 
antiquarian, Pio Pérez, just before Stephens’s visit to the country. Realizing its importance, Stephens prevailed 
upon Pérez to allow him to publish the original Maya text and an English translation. A more scholarly 
treatise on the same manuscript is that by Valentini, The Katunes of Maya History (see Valentini, 1879), which 
contains a critical analysis of the chronological data, and an able defense of its historical accuracy. Brinton 
republished the Maya text with an English translation in his Maya Chronicles (Brinton, 1882, pp. 89-135). 

3Brinton, 1882. Brinton’s bibliography is extensive and varied. Chamberlain (1899, pp. 215-225) states he 
wrote over 150 books and articles from 1859 to 1898. His contributions to the study of the Maya hieroglyphic 
writing alone are too voluminous for complete citation here. They cover almost every phase of the subject, and in 
the field of history, as noted above, are without equal. The more important titles will be found in the bibliography 
under the following heads: Brinton, 1882, 18824, 1882), 1885, 1886, 1886a, 1887, 1890, 1894, 1895, and 1896. 
See also Culin, 1900. 

4Bowditch, 1910. ‘The hieroglyphs figured in this book were drawn by Mrs. A. J. Tretheway, whose work 
is both painstaking and accurate, and compares favorably with that of Miss Hunter. Mrs. Tretheway uses a 
heavier line than Miss Hunter, however, and is less prone to overdraw. While this characteristic gives her work 
a less finished appearance than that of Maudslay’s illustrator, it probably makes it correspondingly more accurate, 
particularly in the delineation of texts from the Early and Middle Periods. For Bowditch’s other publications, 
see the bibliography. 


SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. 33 


The great expansion of interest in the Maya field following these spec- 
tacular advances in the decipherment of the Maya hieroglyphic writing, 
and corresponding advances in the whole general field of Middle American 
archeology, have led to the establishment of courses of instruction in these 
subjects at some of the larger American universities, notably at Harvard, 
where this work is now in its second decade under Dr. A. M. Tozzer. 

The writer’s previous publications on the Maya inscriptions have been 
confined to brief articles on special phases of the subject, and to a text-book 
entitled An Introduction to the Study of the Maya Mieroglyphs, published as 
Bulletin 57 of the Bureau of American Ethnology in 1915, a work especially 
designed to meet the requirements of the beginner.! 


SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. 


The present investigation is limited to a consideration of the chrono- 
logical data found in the Copan inscriptions. In the present state of knowl- 
edge it has appeared inadvisable to extend the research beyond this point 
into the realm of the undeciphered glyphs, since too little is yet known 
about them even to approximate their meanings. 

So far as they have been deciphered, however—and it is now possible to 
read about one-half of the characters—the Maya inscriptions have been 
found to deal exclusively with the counting of time. Brinton, with his usual 
acumen in such matters, clearly perceived this important truth 25 years 
ago, and inhis Primer of Mayan Hieroglyphics gave it precise expression: 

“The frequency and prominence of these elementary numerals in nearly every 
relic of Mayan writing, whether on paper, stone, or pottery, constitute a striking 
feature of such remains, and forcibly suggest that by far the majority of them have 
one and the same purpose, that is, counting; and when we find with almost equal 
frequency the signs for days and months associated with these numerals, we become 
certain that in these records we have before us time-counts, some sort of ephemer- 
ides or almanacs. This is true of all the Codices and of nine out of ten of the 
inscriptions. Here, therefore, is a first and most important step gained toward the 
solution of the puzzle before us.’”” 


Unlike the inscriptions of every other people of antiquity, the Maya 
records on stone do not appear to have been concerned—at least primarily— 
with the exploits of man, such as the achievements of rulers, priests, or 
warriors—in short, with the purely personal phenomena of life; on the con- 
trary, time in its many manifestations was their chief content. 

The Maya priesthood, in whose hands exclusively rested the knowledge 
of the hieroglyphic writing, conceived time more elaborately than any other 
people the world has ever known at a corresponding stage of general culture. 
They observed and recorded its more obvious phenomena, the apparent 
revolutions of the Sun, Moon, Venus, and possibly other planets, solar 
eclipses, planetary configurations; and, most important of all, they accom- 
plished its exact measure: the accurate toll of the passing days. Of first 








1Morley, 1915. For the writer’s shorter articles see the bibliography. 2Brinton, 1895, p. 18. 


34 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


importance in this latter connection were the contemporaneous dates of 
the different monuments. These are usually found at the beginnings of 
the inscriptions, hence Maudslay’s name “Initial Series,’ by which they 
are known, and they are of such amazing accuracy as to be fixed within a 
period of 374,000 years, a tremendous achievement for any time-count, 
European or otherwise.’ 

This truly remarkable chronological system was counted from a fixed 
starting-point, and it furnishes an exact measure of time, by means of which, 
it already appears probable, all related or connected cultures will eventually 
be datable. 

This point is of such importance as to warrant further elaboration. 
By means of the Maya chronological yardstick it is already possible to 
measure roughly the time element in the cultures immediately adjoining 
the Maya on the north: the Zapotec, the Miztec, the Totonac, the Toltec, 
and the Aztec; indeed, even to date them with considerable accuracy.” But 
in addition to this, it is eventually hoped, by means of overlapping culture 
horizons, to extend this dating as far south as the great cultures of Peru and 
Ecuador,’ and as far north as the intensive cultures of the southwestern sec- 
tion of the United States.‘ In short, it now appears as within the range of 
probability that ultimately all cultures of Middle America and of the con- 
tiguous parts of North and South America will be referable, by means of such 





1Tf, as the writer believes, the eight time-periods recorded in sequence on Stela 1o at Tikal all belong to one and 
the same Initial Series, the starting-point of Maya chronology itself was fixed in a much grander chronological 
scheme, a chronology which at the time this monument was erected had already reached more than 5,000,000 
years and might even have been expanded to 64,000,000 years without breaking down, a truly geologic conception 
of measured time. See Morley, 1915, pp. 114-127. 

2By means of this accurate chronological control, Spinden (1917) has been able to work out provisional chronol- 
ogies for the above peoples (7bid., chapter 111), which are probably more accurate than Egyptian chronology in the 
Old Empire or Babylonian chronology at the time of Hammurabi. 

3Means (19174, pp. 383-389, and 1918, pp. 152-170) has already attempted this with considerable success for 
the high cultures of Ecuador and Peru, and now the question would seem to be largely one for the archzologist, 
i. é., tracing closer cultural resemblances in pottery types, stone-carving, metal technique, and general esthetic 
designs between Central and South America. When these have been definitely established, the time element can 
be measured from the northern, that is to say, the Maya end. 

4A beginning has already been made in this field also. The discovery of copper bells of Mexican origin at a 
number of archzological sites in Arizona and New Mexico clearly points to trade relations between the Pueblo 
Indians and the tribes of central Mexico in pre-Columbian times. 

Sites where such bells have been found are Awatobi (see Fewkes, 1898, pp. 628 and 629, and figure 261), 
Black Falls (ibid., 1904, p. 50), Chaves Pass (ibid., p. 111 and figure 67), Taylor (ibid., pp. 162 and 163, and figure 108), 
and Tonto Basin (Hough, 1914, p. 37 and figure 78), all in Arizona; and Tularosa, New Mexico (Hough, ibid., p. 38 
and figure 79), and more recently at Aztec, New Mexico (Morris, 1919, p. 100 and figure 71a). Copper bells were 
also found at Pueblo Bonito, New Mexico, by the American Museum Expeditions under Putnam in 1896 et seq.; 
and they have been reported as far east as the eastern part of Tennessee. (Thomas, 18944, pp. 376 and 714, and 
figure 252.) 

These bells very closely resemble copper bells found in the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza, Yucatan (New Em- 
pire), which can hardly have been carried thither before 1200 A. D. 

The same is true of the so-called Mexican cloisonné or encaustic ware, also found both at Pueblo Bonito and at 
Chichen Itza in the Sacred Cenote, although indigenous to neither site, the region of manufacture being in the 
northern part of the State of Jalisco, Mexico—Totoate, Hacienda Estanzuela, etc., and the specimens found having 
had to be carried at least 1,600 kilometers to have reached either place. See Lumholtz, 1902, vol. 1, pp. 460-462 and 
plates 13-15, Hrdlicka, 1903, p. 385 and plate 39, and Spinden, 1917, pp. 161-164. 

Finally, the Andover-Pecos Expedition of 1915, under Kidder, found a Mexican spindle-whorl in a pre-Colum- 
bian stratum of the refuse heap at Pecos, New Mexico. 

These are sporadic cases to be sure, but they indicate none the less surely that further excavation in these 
areas will undoubtedly develop other points of contact between the Maya and the contiguous cultures of Middle, 
North, and South America, by means of which alone, in default of local chronologies, will it ever be possible to date 
the latter accurately. 





MORLEY PLATE § 





a. The main structure looking southwest, showing the great cross-section exposed by the river. 








b. “The main structure looking northwe: 


Courtesy of the Peabody Museum 


; « ; = ~ 
» 
LIBRARY. 
OF THE ‘ 
AAVERSITY OF fLtini ; 
‘ bes z 





. ; ‘ 7. CP ; ” 
= ee et ee fo eet eT Pe: 
ROR see 


SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. 35 


interlocking relationships, to the standard section of ancient American his- 
tory furnished by the Maya inscriptions. 

In addition to this purely chronological matter in the Maya inscriptions, 
there is also a mass of related astronomical data, as noted above. For 
example, the apparent revolutions of the Moon, Venus, and probably other 
planets were accurately observed and recorded. Solar eclipses were pre- 
dicted; and larger time-periods exactly containing different smaller time- 
periods were evolved.'' Moreover, as we gradually press our way into the 
meaning of the undeciphered glyphs, it is becoming increasingly apparent 
that these intricate graphic symbols deal more with the subject-matter of 
astronomy than with the details of history. 

With far-reaching vision and profound understanding, Brinton, in 
another passage written over 25 years ago, long before the results of modern 
research had justified such a conclusion, closely prognosticated this condition: 


“A careful examination of Dr. Férstemann’s remarkable studies, as well as a 
number of other considerations drawn from the Codices themselves, has persuaded 
me that the general purpose of the Codices and the greater inscriptions, as those of 
Palenque, have been misunderstood and underrated by most writers. In one of his 
latest papers Professor Cyrus Thomas says of the Codices: ‘These records are to a 
large extent only religious calendars’; and Dr. Seler has expressed his distrust in 
Dr. Férstemann’s opinions as to their astronomic contents. My own conviction is 
that they will prove to be much more astronomical than even the latter believes; 
that they are primarily and essentially records of the motions of the heavenly bodies; 
and that both figures and characters are to be interpreted as referring in the first 
instance to the sun and moon, the planets, and those constellations which are most 
prominent in the nightly sky in the latitude of Yucatan. 

“This conclusion is entirely in accordance with the results of the most recent 
research inneighboring fields of Americanculture. The profound studies of the Mexi- 
can calendar undertaken by Mrs. Zelia Nuttall have vindicated for it a truly surpris- 
ing accuracy which could have come only from prolonged and accurately registered 
observations of the relative apparent motions of the celestial bodies. We may be 
sure that the Mayas were not behind the Nahuas in this, and in the grotesque 
figures and strange groupings which illustrate the pages of their books we should 
look for pictorial representations of astronomic events. 

“Of course, as everywhere else, with this serious astronomic lore were associated 
notions of astrology, dates for fixing rites and ceremonies, mythical narratives, 
cosmogonical traditions and liturgies, incantations, and prescriptions for religious 
functions. But through this maze of superstition I believe we can thread our way 
if we hold onto the clue which astronomy can furnish us.’” 


1The best example of this last is the period of 2,920 days, containing 8 solar years of 365 days each, and 5 Venus 
years of 584 days each, so elaborately set forth in pages 24 and 46-50 of the Dresden Codex. See Bowditch, 1910, Pp- 
63-68, 229; Férstemann, 1906, pp. 110-120, 182-196; Morley, 1915, pp. 31-32, 276-278; Spinden, 191% pp. 109-1123 
and Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 618-667. For an English translation of the last, see Seler, 19044, pp,i355-391. 

2Brinton, 1895, pp. 32, 33. This prediction i is all the more remarkable in view of the state of knowledge onthe: 
subject when it was made. Goodman’s important publication had not yet appeared, and the Maya chronological 
system as recorded in the inscriptions was but imperfectly comprehended. In Maya archeology Brinton’s contri- 
butions are for the most part fundamental and permanent. Thus his Maya Chronicles (1882), published a genera- 
tion ago, in spite of many inaccuracies, contains the essentials for the entire reconstruction of Maya history. To 
an extraordinary degree, doubtless due as much to an innately philosophical mind as to his breadth of learn- 
ing, he seems to have possessed a faculty of prevision, of seeing in advance of exact proof, the broad general out- 
lines of the subjects with which he was dealing. This is certainly true of his work in the Maya field, and 
probably also of his work in the related field of Mexican linguistics. 


36 THE: INSCRIPTIONS: AT> COPAN. 


Indeed, decipherment has now proceeded to the point where it may 
possibly be doubted whether history as such was ever recorded on the monu- 
ments. This question, of course, must necessarily remain open until the 
last hieroglyph shall have been deciphered, but certainly the experience of 
the past and present indications of the future tend to strengthen rather than 
dispel such doubts. 

On the other hand, it seems incredible that any people could have erected 
so many monuments and inscribed them so laboriously without recording 
something of their history. Such a condition would be so unique in the 
annals of mankind that, if for no other reason than its isolation, it might well 
be doubted here. In fact, the writer still believes that some residuum of 
history will yet be found after all the calendric glyphs have been deciphered. 
If this should prove to be true, however, it is certain such historical data will 
be confined to very brief allusions to the most important events, perhaps by 
means of highly specialized signs standing for such general ideas as victory, 
defeat, conquest, war, pestilence, famine, birth, death, fruition of crops, trade, 
religious festivals, foundation of cities, and the accession of rulers, and more 
specifically for the names of particular towns, tribes, and individuals. 

Such historical data as these are clearly found in the allied field of the 
Aztec hieroglyphic writing, particularly as it was used in the manuscripts 
or codices. In these texts, by means of specialized characters having just 
such general meanings as the above, much aboriginal history is accurately 
recorded. To begin with, the signs for a large number of Aztec personal and 
place names have been identified. For example, the name-glyphs of the 
nine Aztec tlahtouant,' or rulers, from Acamapichtli, 1376-1395 A. D, down to 
Moctezuma II, 1502-1520 a. pD., are known, as well as the name-glyphs of 
many towns and cities in central Mexico.2. By means of these characters 
and the signs of general meaning just noted, and with the help of a fairly 
accurate chronological system, the Aztec were able to record the principal 
events of their history with considerable precision.® 

In figure 1 is shown the death of the eighth tlahtouani, Ahuitzotl, in the 
year 10 Tochtli (1502 a. p.) and the succession of his nephew, Moctezuma II, 
to the throne, as recorded in several different Aztec manuscripts. 

Figure 1, a, shows this event as set forth in the Codex de Tepechpan.! 
In the center of the circle at the top is seen the head of a rabbit, tochtli, with 
10 small dots around it. This stands for the year 10 Tochtli,® or 1502 of the 
Christian Era. 





‘Literally, “he who speaks” or “the one who speaks” (Seler, 1904, pp. 146, 156). This was the Aztec name 
for ruler or king. The corresponding position among the Maya was called halach vinic, “real or true man” 
(Brinton, 1882, p. 128), both words implying within themselves supreme authority. 

2The second part of the Codex Mendoza sets forth the tribute paid by different cities to the Aztec rulers, the 
signs for the different cities being followed by the amount of tribute paid by each. Pefafiel, in his Nombres 
geograficos de México has collected the signs for many of these place-names. See Penafiel, 1885. 

8The Aztec calendar did not permit of accuracy in dating beyond a period of 52 years, unless an unbroken 
series of the successive 52-year periods was preserved. In other words, any Aztec date could recur fulfilling all the 
necessary conditions imposed by their calendar, after a lapse of 52 years. However, if there are no lacunz the 
record remains accurate indefinitely, indeed until an omission occurs. 

§See Codex (Mapa) de Tepechpan, plate 3. 

5The Aztec named their years after the days with which they began, always one of the following four: Acatl 


(reed), Tochtli (rabbit), Calli (house), and Tecpatl (flint). 


SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. OF 


Attached to this sign are two human figures. The one to the left is 
swathed in bands and tied with rope to indicate that it is dead, a mummy. 
In all the Aztec manuscripts this mummy-bundle is the universal sign for 
death. The fact that the dead man had been the tlahtouani is shown by the 
xtuhtzontl: or turquoise-studded crown that rests on the mummy’s head. 

The xiuhtzontli or Aztec crown resembled somewhat the red crown of 
Lower Egypt in Pharaonic times, reversed, being high in front and low in 
back, with a tassel falling behind. It was worn only by the tlahtouani and 
is used in the manuscripts as a sign for royalty. 





Fic. 1.—Death of the eighth tlahtouani (ruler) Ahuitzotl and succession or Moctezuma IT in the year 10 
Tochtli (7. ¢.. 10 Rabbit, 1502 a.p.) as represented in: a, Codex de Tepechpan; b, Codex Aubin 1576; d, right 
half, Codex Telleriano-Remensis; ¢, right half, Codex Vaticanus 3738. Conquest of the town of Tecuantepec 
in the same year by Ahuitzotl as represented in: c, Codex Mendoza; d, left half, Codex Telleriano-Remensis; 
e, left half, Codex Vaticanus 3738. 


Finally, above and behind the mummy is a small animal attached to the 
xiuhtzontli by a line; from its feet hang water symbols. This is the sign for 
the personal-name, Ahuitzotl (Nahuatl for water-animal), and indicates 
that this was the dead man’s name. 

The figure on the right in 1, a, isa man seated on a throne or dais. He 
also wears the xiuhtzontli, indicating that he, too, isa tlahtouani. His name- 
glyph is attached to the back of the throne by a line and is seen to be the 
xiuhtzontli itself, by which sign Moctezuma II or Moctezuma Xocoytzin 
(the younger) is always represented in the Aztec manuscripts. 

Although this record is very elliptical, it is perfectly clear from it that 
the tlahtouani Ahuitzotl died in the year 10 Tochtli and was succeeded by 
Moctezuma II. 


38 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


This event, according to the Codex Aubin, 1576,' is shown in figure 1,b, a 
comparison of which with figure 1, a, will show that the two passages are prac- 
tically identical. Both have the same year, 10 Tochtli; both show the dead 
man to have been the same person, Ahuitzotl, although in figure 1, , his rank 
has been omitted, 7. ¢., the mummy-bundle lacks the xiuhtzontli; and both 
show the succession of Moctezuma II as tlahtouani. 

This same event as recorded in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis,’ and 
the Codex Vaticanus 3738° is shown in the right halves of figures 1,d, and 1, e, 
respectively, the only essential difference between which and figures 1,a, and 
1,, is the omission in the former of the rank of the dead man and that of his 
successor. 

Barring this minor detail, however, all four of these accounts, each from 
a different source, agree as to the essential facts concerned, namely, that the 
death of the tlahtouani Ahuitzotl and the accession of Moctezuma II took 
place in the year 10 Tochtli. 

By means of these few signs, then, the mummy-bundle on the one hand, 
and the xiuhtzontli on the other, with the corresponding name-glyphs and 
year-signs, the Aztec were able to record the deaths and accessions of their 
rulers, an important part of all histories. 

Another important glyph of general meaning is the shield and arrows 
which signified war or conquest. In the Codex Mendoza, which is a record 
of the cities and towns conquered by the different Aztec tlahtouani, this 
character is placed near the signs for certain towns which themselves are 
attached to burning houses, to signify specific conquests. 

On pages 12 and 13 of this manuscript are recorded a number of cities 
and towns conquered by the tlahtouani Ahuitzotl just before his death in the 
year 10 Tochtli (1502 a. D.), among others, Tecuantepec. In figure 1,c, 
Ahuitzotl is shown seated on his throne, crowned with the xiuhtzontli, a 
speech-scroll issuing from his mouth. ‘The speech-scroll, shown here as a 
curl, issuing from the man’s mouth, was also an emblem of royalty among 
the Aztec, only the tlahtouani himself being thus represented in the codices. 
Indeed, the word tlahtouani, as noted above, itself means “‘the one who 
speaks,” and this idea is graphically brought out by the speech-scroll. He 
faces a shield and arrows, which signify conquest, and the sign for the town 
of Tecuantepec, attached to a burning house. The word Tecuantepec is 
rendered by the head of a man-eating animal—possibly the jaguar—tecuant, 
surmounting a hill, tepec. “The latter is also used in some manuscripts as a 
general sign denoting towns or cities, and here probably means “town of the 
man-eating animal.” ‘To the left is the sign for the year 10 Tochtli, in which 
the conquest was made. By these few characters, record is here made of all 
the essential facts of a specific conquest: the conqueror’s name and rank, the 
name of the conquered city, and the date of the conquest. 





1See Codex Aubin, 1576, p. 77. 
*See Codex Telleriano-Remensis, p. 41. 
3See Codex Vaticanus 3738, p. 84. 


SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. 39 


This same event, as depicted in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis,! is given 
in figure 1,d. Here we see the year 10 Tochtli at the top and to the left a 
warrior with shield and arrows on his left arm, signifying conquest. A com- 
parison of this shield with the one in figure 1, c, shows that the two are prac- 
tically identical. Below is the sign for Tecuantepec. In this passage the 
idea of conquest is brought out by the warrior, shield, and arrows, the burn- 
ing house having been omitted. 

Finally, this same event, as represented in the Codex Vaticanus 3738,7 is 
shown in figure 1,¢. The warrior with a shield on his left arm, standing 
above a jaguar’s head, which rests on top of a hill, is substantially the same 
as in figure 1,d. To the right is the year 
10 Tochtli, and the whole passage records 
the conquest of Tecuantepec in that year 
by the Aztec. 

In figure 2, from the Codex Telle- 
riano-Remensis,’ is shown the first human 
sacrifice, which was celebrated at Tenoch- 
titlan (the City of Mexico), in the year 5 
Tecpatl (1484 a. p.) on the occasion of 
the dedication of the great teocalli (Na- 
huatl for house of the god) or Temple of 
Huitzilipochtli, the Aztec God of War. Fic. 2.—Dedication of the great teocalli 

(temple) of Huitzilipochtli, the Aztec God of 

The year 5 Tecpatlappearsat the top. Warinthe year 5 Tecpatl (i. ¢., § Flint, 1484 a..) 

Below is the great teocalli surmounted by Which occasion human sacniiee is tad ep Been 
the sign for Tenochtitlan, a stone, ¢ei/, eepeeaepers sor ane beh Wa dese 
from which grows the nopal, nochtli. 
Human blood streams down the double stairway and stains the balustrades 
at the top. To the right is the officiating priest in the act of sacrifice. The 
victim, in a welter of blood (red in the original manuscript), lies stretched on 
his back with his eyes closed, as though the sacrifice had already been 
consummated. 

In addition to such purely historical matters as the above, record of 
unusual natural phenomena was also carefully kept, as shown in the several 
examples in figure 3, all from the Codex Telleriano-Remensis. 

The day-sign Ollin in Nahuatl means “‘movement,” and this character was 
used in the Aztec manuscripts to express earthquakes. In figure 3, a, is shown 
an earthquake which occurred in the year 7 Tecpatl (1460 a. p.).4 Figure 
3, b, and c, shows that earthquakes occurred in the years 2 Acatl (1507.4.p.)° 
and 2 Calli (1533 a. D.)® respectively. 

In the former year an eclipse of the sun is also noted, shown graphically 
in figure 3,b, by the missing sector inthe sun-sign. In figure 3,c, there is also 
recorded a volcanic eruption, possibly of Popocatepetl (Nahuatl for smoking 


1See Codex Telleriano-Remensis, p. 41. 4See Codex Telleriano-Remensis, Deis: 
*See Codex Vaticanus 3738, p. 84. See Codex Telleriano-Remensis, p. 42. 
3See Codex Telleriano-Remensis, p. 39. See Codex Telleriano-Remensis, p. 45. 





40 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


hill), in the year 2 Calli. The smoke-curls will be noted rising above the 
star, which is attached to the year-sign by a line. Another solar eclipse 
is declared in figure 3, f, to have taken place in the year 5 Tochtli (1510 
A.D.) Again, as in the case of figure 3,, there is a sector missing from 
the sun-disk. 

In figure 3,d, is shown a comet (Nahuatl citlalpopoca, smoking-star), 
happily conceived as a serpent, which swept over the Valley of Mexico in the 
year 10 Calli (1489 a. p.).2 It was this comet or another, which 30 years 
later Moctezuma II regarded as having presaged the coming to Anahuac of 
the Spaniards, whom he believed to be sons of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl. 





Fic. 3.—Natural phenomena recorded in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis: a, an earthquake in the year 7 
Tecpatl (7. ¢., 7 Flint, 1460 a. p.); 6, an earthquake and an eclipse of the sun in the year 2 Acatl (i. ¢., 2 Reed, 1507 
A.D.); ¢, an earthquake and a volcanic eruption in the year 2 Calli (i. ¢., 2 House, 1533 a. D.); d, a comet in the year 
10 Calli (i. ¢., 10 House, 1489 a. D.); ¢, a great fall of snow at the town of Tlachquiahco in the Province of Mixte- 
capan in year 11 Acat! (1. ¢., 11 Reed, 1503 a. D.); f, an eclipse of the sun in the year 5 Tochtli (i. ¢., 5 Rabbit, 
ISIOA. D.). 


A great fall of snow at Tlachquiahco in the Province of Mixtecapan in 
the year 11 Acatl (1503 A. D.)* is shown in figure 3,¢. Note the snow falling 
from the bank of clouds. The sign for Tlachquiahco is the H-shaped object 
below the bank of clouds, the tlachtli, or Aztec ball-court, shown covered 
with water symbols, the rain, quiahuitl, with the place terminative co— 
Tlach-quiah-co. The plant to the right is possibly the sign for Mixtecapan. 





1See Codex Telleriano-Remensis, p. 43. *Tbid., p. 40. *Tbid., p. 41. 


SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. 41 


Still another important event, recorded in practically all the Aztec his- 
torical codices, was the renewal of the sacred fire at the end of each xihwit/- 
molpia (Nahuatl for “‘our years are tied up again”) or 52-year period. 

This religious festival always occurred at the beginning of the year 2 
Acatl, and its observance is recorded in the manuscripts in one of two ways: 
either by the fire-stick with which the sacred fire was rekindled, or by a knot 
below the year-sign, signifying thereby that the years had been tied up, 
hence the name xihuitlmolpia by which the period was known. 

Examples of the first are shown in figure 4, a, b, c, and d, where the 
renewal of the sacred fire in the year 2 Acatl (1507 a. p.) is recorded according 
to the Codices Telleriano-Remensis,! Vaticanus 37382, Mendoza’, and Botu- 
rini* respectively. Here the fire-stick appears with a row of charred holes 
in it, with the fire-drill in position; smoke-curls rising from the orifice, 








a b c Woe 
Fic. 4.—Feast of xihuitlmolpia or the completion of the 52-year cycle, always celebrated at the beginning of 
the year 2 Acatl (i. ¢., 2 Reed, 1507 or 1455 or 1403 or 1351 A.D., etc.) as represented in: a, the Codex Telleriano- 


Remensis; 5, the Codex Vaticanus 3738; c, the Codex Mendoza; d, the Codex Boturini; ¢, the Codex Aubin 1576; 
f, the Codex de Tepechpan. 


This method of kindling the sacred fire, the friction of two sticks rubbed 
against one another, had a wide distribution in ancient America, and fire- 
sticks with rows of charred holes, almost identical with those shown in figure 
I, a-d, have been recovered as far north as the Pueblo area in the south- 
western United States.* 

The second character for the xihuitlmolpia, a knot below the year-sign, 

is shown in figure 4, e, and f, from the Codex Aubin, 1576,° and the Codex de 
Tepechpan’ respectively. It is a simple knot and indicates that the previous 
52-year cycle had been tied up, 7. ¢., completed, and the next succeeding 
one had begun with the year 2 Acatl. 
The foregoing examples will suffice to indicate the general tenor of 
the Aztec historical records, the general meaning of which is no longer con- 
cealed from us. Indeed, it is now possible to decipher as high as go per 
cent of all Aztec glyphs, and it is evident from the examples given that 
at least some of their manuscripts are true histories. 








1See Codex Telleriano-Remensis, p. 33. 2See Codex Vaticanus 3738, p. 85. 

3See Codex Mendoza, p. 14. 4See Codex Boturini, p. 20. 

’The writer has found such fire-sticks in the Pueblo ruins of the Jemez Plateau, New Mexico, at Puyé and 
Tyuonyi for example; and Kidder and Guernsey report them from the cliff-dwelling region of northeastern Ari- 
zona (1919, pp. 120 and 121, and plate 50, a and c-e); indeed, their use seems to have been general throughout 
the whole Pueblo area. 

8See Codex Aubin, 1576, p. 78. 7See Codex (Mapa) de Tepechpan, plate 3. 


42 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The fact also that a native Mexican scribe, writing shortly after the 
Spanish Conquest (1558), was able to amplify and expand some pre-Colum- 
bian record into such an accurate historical account as the Annals of Quauh- 
titlan proves conclusively that historical synopses were carefully kept and 
the principal events of Aztec history noted therein. In the manuscript 
mentioned, the history of the Chichimec, a Nahua tribe inhabiting the Valley 
of Mexico in pre-Columbian times, is traced from 635 Aa. D. down to 1558 
A. D. in practically an unbroken sequence of nearly a thousand years. 

These records, to be sure, contain little more than a succession of highly 
abbreviated allusions to the principal events, but their historical character 
can hardly be challenged on that account, and they may be accepted without 
reservation as reliable sources for the reconstruction of ancient American 
history. 

Unfortunately such is not found to be the case when we turn to the 
three Maya manuscripts that have come down to us, although the Spanish 
chroniclers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries explicitly state that 
the Maya also recorded their history in their books. 

The writer has reviewed this evidence elsewhere,! but the more impor- 
tant passages bearing on this point are repeated below. Many, in fact 
most, of the early Spanish chroniclers make the direct statement that the 
Maya recorded their history in their manuscripts or books. Bishop Landa, 
always one of our most reliable authorities, writing as early as 1566, says in 
this connection: “And the sciences which they [the priests] taught were the 
count of the years, months, and days, the feasts and ceremonies, the adminis- 
tration of their sacraments, days and fatal times, their methods of divination 
and prophecy, and foretelling events, and the remedies for the sick, and their 
antiquities.”* And again, “They [the priests] attended the service of the 
temples and to the teaching of their sciences and how to write them in their 
books.’’® And again, “This people also used certain characters or letters 
with which they wrote in their books their ancient matters and sciences.’’4 

Father Ponce, who made a tour through New Spain in 1588, writes: 
“The natives of Yucatan are, among all the inhabitants of New Spain, espe- 
cially deserving of praise for three things. First, that before the Spaniards 
came they made use of characters and letters with which they wrote out 
their histories, their ceremonies, the order of sacrifices to their idols and 
their calendars in books made of the bark of a certain tree.’ 

Doctor Aguilar, writing at the close of the same century, 1596, says: 
“On these [the fiber-books] they painted in color the reckoning of their 
years, wars, pestilences, hurricanes, inundations, famines, and other events.’”® 

Father Lizana, writing in 1601, is scarcely less explicit: “The history 
and authorities we can cite are certain ancient characters, scarcely under- 
stood by many and explained by some old Indians, sons of the priests of 
their gods, who alone knew how to read and expound them and who were 
believed in and revered as much as the gods themselves.’” 

1Morley, 1915, pp. 33-36. ‘Landa, 1881, p. 103. ‘Aguilar, 1639, p. 87. 


*Landa, 1881, p. 74. ‘Ponce, 1872, p. 392. 7Lizana, 1893, p. 3. 
*Landa, op. cit., same page. 


SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. 43 


Bishop Cogolludo, nearly a century later (1688), adds the following 
evidence: “In a city named Tixhualatun, which signifies ‘place where one 
graven stone is placed upon another,’ they say are their archives, where 
everybody had recourse for events of all kinds, as we do to Simancas.’’! 

Finally, as late as 1697, Villagutierre found historical records still being 
kept in the hieroglyphic writing by an independent Maya tribe, the Itza, 
of Peten: “Because their king (Canek) had read it in his analtehes [fiber- 
books or codices] they had knowledge of the provinces of Yucatan, and of 
the fact that their ancestors had formerly come from them; analtehes or 
histories being one and the same thing.’” 

Indeed, so far as the manuscripts are concerned, there can be little doubt, 
in the face of such diréct evidence as the foregoing, that the Maya also 
recorded their history. 

When we come to examine the Maya codices extant, however, these 
statements are not substantiated. The Dresden Codex, for example, deals 
with the tonalamatl, and astronomical phenomena and calculations. The 
Codex Tro-Cortesianus is almost entirely given over to the record of tonal- 
amatls, and the Codex Peresianus partially so. There is a possibility, how- 
ever, that the last may have some small content of history, as a succession 
of katuns like the u kahlay katunob in the Books of Chilan Balam clearly 
appears on one side of the manuscript.’ 


II {Katun] 2 Ahau 
[Katun] 13 Ahau 


XI [Katun] 11 Ahau 
IX [Katun] 9 Ahau 
VII [Katun] 7 Ahau 
V [Katun] 5 Ahau 
III [Katun] 3 Ahau 
I [Katun] 1 Ahau 
XII [Katun] 12 Ahau 
X [Katun] ro Ahau 
VIII [Katun] 8 Ahau There was fighting in the fortress of Mayapan 
because of the seizure of the fortress and the for- 
tified town by the joint government in the city of 
Mayapan. 
VI [Katun] 6 Ahau 
IV [Katun] 4 Ahau The pestilence took place; the general death took 
place in the fortress. 
(II [Katun] 2 Ahau The small-pox broke out. 
XIII [Katun] 13 Ahau Ahpulha died the sixth year. The count of the years 
was toward the East, [the month] Pop began on 
[the day] 4 Kantothe East . . . . 9 Imix was the 
ra. | day on which Ahpulha Napot Xiu died in the year 
ie of the Lord 158. 
XI [Katun] 11 Ahau The mighty men came from the East. They brought 


the sickness. They arrived for the first time in 
this country we Maya men say in the year 1513.° 





1Cogolludo, 1688, p. 186. 


*Villagutierre, 1701, p. 353. 


3Morley, 1915, pp. 33, 84, 79-86 and Appendix VII, p. 576. 


4Matter inclosed in brackets, thus [ ], does not appear in the original. 


tinuity of the sequence, however. 
5This extract appears on the back of folio 41 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel. For a facsimile 
reproduction see Gordon, 1913, plate 76, and for a translation with notes, Brinton, 1882, pp. 155, 156, 161, and 162. 


Here the “2 Ahau”’ preserves the con- 


44 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


These u kahlay katunob “‘or records of the katuns,”’ were written approx- 
imately in 1575 to 1800 a. p. by native Maya in the Maya language but in 
the characters of the Spanish script, and at least one of them, the first 
chronicle of the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel,' gives an unbroken 
succession of the katuns, or 7,200-day periods, for more than 1,100 years, 
carrying back the chronological outline of Maya history to about 450 A. D. 
The successive katuns appear in a column at the left of each page, with the 
corresponding events, if any, written after each, only the more important 
events being recorded, as shown at the bottom of the preceding page. 

The close resemblance of this extract from the first « kahlay katunob 
in the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel to the Aztec historical codices, 
such as the Codex Mendoza, the Codex ‘Telleriano-Remensis, and the 
Codex Aubin, 1576, for example, with their sequences of years, is so 
apparent as to require no further comment here, and it may be accepted as 
indicating that the u kahlay katunob in the Books of Chilan Balam were 
copied by natives in the Spanish script from older pre-Columbian historical 
manuscripts, which gave the outline and principal events of Maya history— 
in short, that Maya historical manuscripts formerly existed in spite of the 
fact that none of them have yet been discovered. Moreover, it should be 
borne in mind in this connection that_many Maya manuscripts are known 
to have been destroyed by the Spanish priests in their efforts to stamp out 
the native religion, and the fact that only those of a non-historical char- 
acter have been preserved is doubtless due to accident rather than to any 
failure on the part of the Maya to have recorded their history.’ 

Turning next to the Maya inscriptions, it must be admitted that their 
possible historical content is still an open question, although both Lehmann 
and Spinden (as well as the writer) are of the opinion that the as yet unde- 
ciphered glyphs will prove to contain some historical data. Indeed, occa- 
sionally the subjects portrayed on the monuments are themselves such as to 
lend color to the idea. Many of the stele show bound captives with glyphs 
inscribed on their shoulders and thighs, or somewhere near them, and in 
such cases the conclusion is almost inevitable that these signs stand for 
the personal or place names of conquered rulers, tribes, or cities, as in the 
related Aztec codices. Lehmann says in this connection: 


“T feel no doubts that a number of the Maya reliefs and inscriptions are 
intended to commemorate historical events, particularly the scenes wherein a 
number of men in humble attitude, often loaded with chains, approach the Maya 
ruler. Each of these figures is apparently the chieftain of a conquered tribe, the 
name and origin of which are carefully denoted by a number of hieroglyphics.’” 











1See Brinton, 1882, pp. 152-157; and Gordon, 1913, plates 74-77, for a facsimile reproduction of this chronicle. 

2Bishop Landa himself, to whom we otherwise owe so much, naively confesses to having burned a number of 
these manuscripts: “We found among them a great number of books in their letters, and because they had nothing 
but superstitions and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they felt marvellously and gave them pain.” 
(1881, p. 103.) In this conflagration, according to a letter written by the Yucatecan Jesuit, Domingo Rodri- 
guez, to a Senor Estévez from Bologne on March 20, 1805, the following material was destroyed: 5,000 idols of 
different forms and dimensions; 13 large stones which served as altars; 22 small stones of various forms; 27 rolls of 
signs and hieroglyphics on deerskin; and 197 vases of all dimensions and shapes. See Molina Solis, 1897, p. 195. 

3Lehmann, 1909, pp. 16, 17. 


SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. 45 


Spinden has elaborated this hypothesis in a recent paper, arguing for 
the historical character of some of the reliefs: 


“Judging by the graven pictures many monuments of the southern Maya are 
memorials of conquest. Captives bound with rope or held by the hair are actually 
represented in several instances. On a still greater number of monuments the 
principal personage stands upon a crouched or prostrate man devoid of all signs of 
rank and power. . . . Nowit is obvious that the presence of vassals and overlords 
on the monuments increases the probability that actual historical events are being 
commemorated and that actual historical persons are being portrayed. .. . All the 
human figures 1 in this tableau [Piedras Negr as, Stela 12], including rhreas victors and 
nine victims, have short incised inscriptions upon their bodies or near their heads. 
These inscriptions consist of two or more glyphs, and it seems reasonable to 
suppose that names of both persons and places are recorded.””! 


This evidence in itself is very convincing, but when it is coupled with 
the fact that historical data are known to be recorded in the related Aztec 
manuscripts, and stated by the early Spanish writers to have been recorded 
in the Maya manuscripts as well, and actually found in the Books of Chilan 
Balam, there can be little doubt that some historical data will yet be found 
in the Maya inscriptions, even though the most recent discoveries are not 
in this direction. 

Whether or not the Maya inscriptions contain such an historical re- 
siduum, however, is of little moment in the present connection, since, from 
what has already been said, there can be no doubt as to the fundamental 
part played by chronology in their records. 

The decipherment of the dates on the monuments at Copan, therefore, 
is the object of the present investigation. Upon the dates of the monuments 
hinges the solution of other important and related problems: the development 
of Maya art, the determination of Maya astronomical learning, the possible 
discovery of historical material, and, in fact, the very function of the monu- 
ments themselves. Indeed, it is safe to say in this connection that little 
or no progress can be made in understanding the true nature of the Maya 
monuments and their inscriptions until their dates shall have been deciphered. 


1Spinden, 1916a, pp. 442, 443. Stela 12, at Piedras Negras, mentioned above, is one of the best examples of 
these possible “historical monuments.”’ See Maler, 1901, plate 21. The subject portrayed is a ruler seated upon a 
throne with an attendant standing on either side. Seated cross-legged below the throne, and between the two 
attendants, are nine captives bound with ropes, their ear-plugs removed, no head-dresses or clothing, and an unmis- 
takable expression of distress on their faces. “The scene would appear to be that of a conqueror and his captives. 
It is interesting to note that of these twelve figures the ruler, his two attendants, and five of the captives have the 
same glyph either inscribed on them or near them, namely, the familiar bat head or Zotz-sign with a knot prefix. 
In other words, two-thirds have the same character attached to them. Lehmann (1909, p. 17, note 1) suggests this 
may have something to do with the Maya bat tribe, the Tzotzil (Maya ¢zotz, bat). Spinden (zbid.) believes this 
glyph may have the general meaning “here follows a name.” 

The writer thinks it more likely that this bat glyph is a general sign for “conquest” or “conquered.” The 
other glyph or glyphs would then indicate the name of the figure in each case, the picture itself showing the relation 
of the figure to the central idea, i. ¢., whether as conquering or being conquered. 

Lintel 2 at Piedras Negras has a similar subject. See Maler, 1901, plate 31. Here an elaborately dressed ruler, 
with spear in hand, faces six kneeling figures, though these are not bound. Behind the ruler stands a single attend- 
ant. Again, four of the six captives (?) have the Zotz glyph standing above them. Although it is too early to 
attempt to speak finally as to the meaning of this glyph, the accompanying pictures are such as to indicate that it 
may well have had the general meaning suggested by the writer above. 

The strong probability, as Spinden notes above, that portraiture occurs on the monuments, also tends to 
confirm their historical character, for the reason that if the figures portrayed are particular individuals, the 
accompanying inscriptions would presumably record their activities. 


46 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


It is highly probable, moreover, that the exact dating of the monuments 
will throw light on the meanings of the as yet undeciphered glyphs. This 
is certainly true of the Supplementary Series, a group of 7 or 8 signs normally 
standing between the two parts of the Initial Series terminal date, which, 
as the writer has shown elsewhere,! depend for the very fact of their existence 
upon the corresponding Initial Series. Indeed, so far as the Supplementary 
Series are concerned, it is necessary to know the date recorded by the accom- 
panying Initial Series before interpretation can even be attempted. 

Again, in the case of the Secondary Series,? if we are to determine the 
nature of the phenomena governing this important count, which ranges from 
one day to more than one million years—that is, whether it records astro- 
nomical, mythological, traditional, or historical data, it will first be neces- 
sary to know the dates on which the governing phenomena occurred. 

The record of these three counts, the Initial, Supplementary, and 
Secondary Series, the first and third solar, the second lunar, comprises 
approximately one-half of the Maya inscriptions, and enough has already 
been said concerning them to show their intimate connection with, and 
dependence upon, the counting of time. ‘To the ultimate solution of these 
and other related problems, therefore, not only in this archeological area, 
but also in the much broader field of contemporary ancient America, an~ 
accurate knowledge of Maya chronology is indispensable; and in the present 
volume this particular phase of the inscriptions at one of the largest Maya 
cities has been exhaustively reviewed. 


METHOD OF TREATMENT. 


The immediate object of this research has determined to a large extent 
the method of treatment followed in describing the different monuments. 
The Old Maya Empire, approximately the period covered by the Copan 
inscriptions (between three and four centuries), has been divided into three 
smaller periods: the Early, the Middle, and the Great; and under these 
headings the individual monuments have been described according to their 
relative chronological positions in each subdivision, the inscriptions of the 
Early Period being found in Chapter II, those of the Middle Period in Chap- 
ter III, and those of the Great Period in Chapter IV. 

The general discussion of each monument is preceded by a synoptic 
outline giving its most essential features: name, provenance, date, reproduc- 
tions of the text, and references. By this standardized treatment, which is 
followed throughout the book, the same important points about every monu- 
ment are given in a synopsis at the head of each, so that it is not necessary to 
read all the accompanying description in order to arrive at the most essential 

1Morley, 1916. The general nature of this count, dealing with the moon, is described briefly in Appendix VI. 
2Secondary Series is the name which has been applied to glyphs recording dates other than Initial Series dates. 
They consist of a number and date and are usually counted from the Initial Series or from some date which may 


be referred back to the Initial Series. For an explanation of this count, see Morley, 1915, pp. 74-76. 
3For the further discussion of this question see pp. 53, 54. 














PLATE 6 











La Lilly yn Lane? = 
23 Naber, jr 


QMMEGEL. 


ZY 
GZ 











Q 
WESTERN 


i: A i 
| wy COURT HH] 
il Hig NX WS i y : <— 


N 
HIEROGLYPHIC | 


=== 





4 ie =e 
tf) = — | mai 


ai 
ee i 4 












MIDDLE 
E 
COURT 














STAIRWAY 






















































LEGEND 
mmm STELAE 
@ RECTANGULAR ALTARS 
e ROUND ALTARS 
m= HIEROGLYPHIC STEPS OR JAMBS 
| THE HIEROGLYPHIC STAIRWAY 





SCALE IN FEET 


EEO oss 


Plan of main structure, showing the location of the associ ited monuments. 


METHOD OF TREATMENT. 47 


points. It is thought this method of treatment will make the information 
available here more accessible, and will, at the same time, facilitate use of 
this book as a chronological concordance of the Copan inscriptions. 

An example of one of these synoptic headings follows: 


STELA A. 
Provenance: In the Great Plaza just north of Mound 4, Main Structure. 
(See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax. 


Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 25, 27-29. 

Spinden, 1913, plate 20, 7 (part only). 
(b) drawing: Maudslay, ibid., plates 26, 30. 

Morley, 1915, plate 7, b. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, 3 plates after p. 158. 

References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 101, 126, 127, 182, 183, and tables 29 and 31. 
Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 598. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 129. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 35. 
Gordon, 1902, p. 171. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 36-39. 
Morley, 1915, pp. 169, 170. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. I, pp. 754,755. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 158, 159, 162, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 158. 
Thomas, 1900, pp. 776, 801. 

Under the first heading are given the location of the monument and 
the corresponding map in this volume where this is shown. 

Under the second heading is given the date of the monument expressed 
in terms of the Maya chronological system. The method followed here in 
transcribing Maya dates into the terms of our own Arabic notation is that 
first used by Bowditch.! 

The largest time-period usually present in a Maya date, the cycle, is 
written first, 7. ¢., to the left; next come the katuns; next the tuns; next the 
uinals; and last the kins, each being separated from the next by a dot, thus, 
9.15.0.0.0, the whole number being read: 9 cycles, 15 katuns, o tuns, 0 uinals, 
andokins. Immediately following this is the terminal date (4 Ahau 13 Yax 
in the present example), reached by counting this period forward from the 
starting-point of Maya chronology. ‘The whole record 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 
13 Yax, therefore, means that, if 9.15.0.0.0 be counted forward from 
the starting-point of Maya chronology, the day reached will be 4 Ahau, the 
14th day of the month Yax, written as 13 Yax in the Maya notation.” 

Maya dates are therefore simply records of periods of elapsed time. It 
is doubtful, indeed, whether the current day, as such, ever was recorded. 
In the present example the 9 cycles, 15 katuns, 0 tuns, 0 uinals, and o kins 
refer to past time, and the closing day of this period, 4 Ahau 13 Yax, was 
probably already past when it was counted. We have an identical practice 
in describing the time of day, that is, in counting hours, minutes, and seconds. 
When we say it is_2 o'clock in the afternoon, in reality the second hour 


after noon has passed, and the third hour is about to commence. In other 


1Bowditch, 1901, p. 1; also Bowditch, 1910, p. 38, note I. *Morley, 1915, pp. 46-48. 


48 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


words, when we count the time of day we refer to elapsed, not current, time. 
This same method is used in reckoning astronomical time. During the 
passage of the first hour after midnight the hours are said to be zero, the time 
being counted by the number of minutes and seconds elapsed. Thus half 
past 12 is written o 30™"* 0%. Indeed, in this method 1 hour can not 
be written until the first hour after midnight is completed or until it is 
i. clock, namely.#1')- 07 410, 

And so it was with the Maya. The time periods recorded refer to 
elapsed, not current, time, and since the Maya did not subdivide the day 
(at least periods smaller than the day have not yet been found in the records 
which have come down to us), the day is the basic unit of their count. 

In speaking of a date as “in Cycle 9” in this memoir, what is really 
meant is that such a date is in the tenth cycle. However, in order to preserve 
the association of the Maya numerals actually recorded, it will be under- 
stood that dates thus described occurred in the period following the numeral 
actually recorded; as Katun 15 for a date in the sixteenth katun or Katun 18 
for a date in the nineteenth katun. 

The basic unit of the Maya Calendar then was the day, and Maya dates 
were recorded by stating how many days, expressed as so many cycles of 
144,000 days each, so many katuns of 7,200 days each, so many tuns of 
360 days each, so many uinals of 20 days each, and so many kins (odd 
number of days under 20) had elapsed since the starting-point of their 
chronology to reach the date recorded. 

This method of dating is identical with the use of the Julian day by 
modern astronomers and chronologists, the corresponding Julian day of 
any date giving the total number of days which have elapsed from the 
starting-point of the Julian Period, 4713 B. c., tothe given date. In recording 
dates in our own Christian chronology we follow a similar, though not an 
identical, practice. 

In writing .1916 A. D., Sunday, January 1, for example, we understand 
that 1 period of a thousand years, 9 periods of a hundred years, 1 period of 
ten years, and 6 periods of one year have elapsed since the birth of Christ— 
the starting-point of our chronology—to reach the current day, which is 
Sunday, the first day of the month of January. 

In this latter case, however, the basic unit of the count is the year, not 
the day, as in the Julian and Mayan Periods. Indeed, in our own method 
of writing dates there is no direct record of the fractional parts of a year, 
1. €., the number of days in the new year to reach the date recorded; and this 
information has to be calculated from the month date given. For this reason, 
as often claimed, the Maya kept a more convenient record of the total 
number of elapsed days since the beginning of their chronology than we can 
by our system, complicated as the latter is by the bissextile element. 

The Bowditch method of transcribing Maya dates is the only one now 
in use, having entirely replaced the clumsy system devised by Goodman or 





‘Morley, 1915, pp. 46-48. 


MORLEY 


PLATE 7 





D i Pelek ena: ot Sane 


a. [The Great Plaza looking east from the northwest corner. 





= 5 ee oe ee Due -F 


b. The Great Plaza looking northwest from the summit of Mound 26. 


Courtesy of the Peabody Museum 


‘LIBRARY 
OF THE 
ANIVERSITY OF (LLIN: 





METHOD OF TREATMENT. 49 


the still clumsier expedient of F'6rstemann and Seler of reducing the dates to 
their corresponding day totals in our own Arabic notation. 

In comparing Maya dates throughout this work the terminal dates have 
been omitted; for example, 9.15.0.0.0 is used for 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 
Yax, and 9g. 16. 0.0.0 for 9. 16.0. 0.0 2 Ahau 13 Tzec. This omission, how- 
ever, in no way affects the values of the dates thus abbreviated, and has 
been introduced only to simplify and expedite the comparisons. When 
monuments of the same date are known at other sites the fact is noted and 
reference made to Appendix VIII, where their location will be found. 

It has appeared advisable not to give the corresponding equivalents 
in Christian chronology in the general text, first because of the widely differ- 
ent results reached in the several systems of correlation which have been 
proposed, and second because eventually it is hoped that it will be possible 
to correlate the two chronologies to a day by means of astronomical data 
present in the inscriptions. The writer believes, however, that it is now 
possible to fix Maya dates to their corresponding positions in the Christian 
Era with a maximum error of less than 5 years and probably of less than 1 
year. However, because of even this slight uncertainty, it has seemed best 
to reserve the presentation of the entire correlation question, as well as the 
table of equivalents suggested by the writer, for treatment in an appendix. 
(See Appendix IT.) 

Under the third heading in each synopsis will be found plate and figure 
references to specific publications where the monument under discussion has 
been reproduced; also whether the reproduction is from a photograph or 
drawing, or from both. 

Under the fourth and last heading are given page references to the 
several authorities who have described the monument. ‘Then follows the 
general discussion of the text. 

The latter in each case opens with the size of the monument and a brief 
description of its principal characteristics—how the inscription is presented, 
whether upon one or more sides. Then comes the detailed consideration 
of the text, the decipherment of its several dates, and finally a summary of 
the dates. 

At the end of each chapter, the chronological data have been briefly 
analyzed, particularly with reference to the growth and expansion of the 
tribe or people whose capital was Copan, during the corresponding period. 

In designating individual glyph-blocks in a text, the method followed is 


that devised by Bowditch, namely, a set of two coordinates; the. vertical - 


rows or columns being given letters from left to right, thus: A, B, C, D, etc., 
and the horizontal rows, numbers from top to bottom, thus: 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. 
By means of these two sets of coérdinates, any glyph-block can be simply 
and clearly designated. 

For example, in figure 5, glyph a would be described as a1, glyph 6 
as B3, and glyph y as B6. ‘This simple method of glyph designation will 


ae 


50 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


be found to apply in the great majority of cases, but in a few texts 
where the arrangement is irregular, other methods have to be used. 

The word hieroglyphic has been abbreviated to glyph 
throughout the present work in referring to signs ex- 
pressing single ideas, such as the cycle-sign and its co- 
efficient, the katun-sign and its coefficient, a day-sign and 
its coefficient, for example. The term glyph-block, as 
used hereinafter, refers to what Maudslay calls a glyph— 
that is, a rectangular block or character composed of 
one or more basic elements. Thus, in many glyph- 
blocks there are two ideas expressed, one recorded in 
the left half of the block, designated here as aia or Bia, 
and the other in the right half of the block designated 
here as Alb or Bib. In some cases there are even four 
glyphs in a single glyph-block; in such cases the four glyphs 
are designated as ala u. h. (upper half), aid u. h. (upper 
half), aial.h. (lower half), and aid |. h. (lower half), re- 


spectively. When the presentation is so irregular as to 








lie without the operation of these simple rules, Maudslay’s Fic. 5.—Method of 
: i : ‘ designating individual 
numerical designations have been followed. glyph-blocks. 


The Maya monuments have been usually classified into two groups 
according to their shape and size: stele and altars. As used in Maya arche- 
ology, the word stela (plural, stele) refers to a monolith, of columnar, shaft, 
or slab-like shape, usually over 2 meters in height. As a rule, these are 
inscribed with glyphs and human or grotesque figures, though either or both 
may be wanting. When both are wanting—+. ¢., when a stela is devoid of 
sculptural decoration—we may probably assume that it was originally 
painted instead of carved. 

As used in classical archeology, the word stele or stela usually has a 
more restricted application. A stele specifically refers to painted or carved 
slabs or pillars erected over Greek graves, or to milestones near towns, and 
more generally to inscribed stones in public places, the last more closely 
paralleling its use in Maya archeology. 

Although Maya stele vary greatly in size and shape, the highest being 
over 10 meters and the lowest less than 1 meter in height, it is necessary to 
group them all together as opposed to the other general class of Maya mon- 
uments, the so-called “altars.” ‘The latter are much smaller and less uni- 
form in shape than the stele, and, indeed, appear to have had some function 
subordinate to the latter, perhaps as true altars—. ¢., “places for offering 
SACTINCE, 

A fundamental difference in function also probably existed between the 
two groups at first. As the writer has shown elsewhere, the stele are 
probably time-markers, erected perhaps primarily to mark the passage of 





1See Appendix VII and Morley, 19178, pp. 195-201. 


METHOD OF TREATMENT. 51 


time. Throughout the greater part of the Old Empire they were set up at 
intervals of 1,800 days, in the different cities, and may perhaps be likened 
to 5-year almanacs, setting forth the principal astronomical or historical 
events of the preceding 5-year period. 

The altars, on the other hand, rarely appear to have been thus used, 
except toward the end of the Great Period. They are usually associated 
with stele, standing in front of them, although occasionally independent 
altars are found. As suggested above, it is possible that they are altars in 
the truest sense of the word—places where sacrifices were offered in front 
of and to the stele. 

Inscriptions are also found on architectural members, such as stairways, 
steps, door-jambs, lintels, cornices, wall-panels (both exterior and interior), 
and columns, the two types of monuments described, however, being suffi- 
ciently elastic to include all the detached inscribed stones. 

In selecting the illustrations for this work, the principal object the writer 
has kept in view has been to use chiefly unpublished material; that is, to 
figure such texts as are accessible nowhere else. With the illustrations 
given in this work, and those already published by Maudslay and by the 
Peabody Museum, reproductions of practically all the Copan inscriptions 
are now accessible—certainly all the chronological portions—with but one 
notable exception, namely, the Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26. This 
lengthy text, the longest known in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum, 
is unfortunately in too fragmentary a condition to permit anything 
approaching its complete reassemblage. An analysis of the chronological 
parts, however, has been attempted in Chapter IV, pages 237-274. 

The urgency of placing on record reproductions of all the Copan inscrip- 
tions is pressing. Several of the monuments have been destroyed in the 
past decade, indeed within the past 4 years, and further irreparable losses 
may occur at any time. With the publication of the present volume, how- 
ever, a part at least of every text now known at Copan will be accessible to 
the student, and in most cases reproductions of all the chronological glyphs 


will have been published. 
In many cases photographs only are figured; in more, the reproductions 


are from drawings of the originals; and in a few, both drawings and photo- 
graphs of the same text are given. 

Some of the photographs used have been loaned by the Peabody 
Museum, for which the writer wishes to express his thanks. ‘The remaining 
photographs, except that of the painting of Copan by Vierra (plate 33), 
were taken by the Carnegie Institution Central American Expeditions of 
1915 and 1916. The Vierra painting is reproduced through the courtesy 
of the Museum of San Diego, San Diego, California, where the original is 
on exhibition. 





1In 1912 Stel 8 and 9 were broken up for use in the foundations of a wall then being built around the village 
cemetery, and in 1916 Altars L’ and M’ were smashed into small pieces for use in the foundations of the new 
village church. 


52 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


All drawings of inscriptions in this memoir were made by the writer, 
in the great majority of cases directly from the originals, but two or three 
being drawn from casts or photographs in the Peabody Museum. 

How far the writer has succeeded in eliminating his personal equation 
in these drawings is difficult to say, although every glyph was measured 
and drawn to scale, 7. ¢., not sketched free-hand. ‘This point has already 
received some attention in connection with the work of Miss Hunter and 
Mrs. Tretheway, the delineators of the Maudslay and Bowditch publications, 
respectively, and a closing word may be added here. 

In such complex compositions as the Maya glyphs, the element of 
selection, the quality of line employed, the method of rendering the depth 
of the relief, in some cases as much as 15 cm., and of showing the effaced 
portions, to say nothing of the debatable ground of restoring partially effaced 
glyphs, all make for considerable individual variation, even in copies of 
the same original. Moreover, the texts themselves differ greatly one from 
another, due in part to the different periods from which they date, and in 
part to the varying skill of the sculptors by whom they were severally exe- 
cuted. In view of all these complicating factors, therefore, it is not sur- 
prising to find slight dissimilarities in different representations of the same 
glyph. Such differences, however, are usually unimportant. They do not 
interfere with the accurate representation of the details upon which the 
glyphs depend for their meanings; and they are of moment only when it 
becomes necessary to rely upon the stylistic criteria for dating. In such 
cases, however, it is imperative to have the spirit of the original preserved 
so far as possible (character of line, detail of decoration, and depth of relief), 
for it is only by means of such secondary criteria that even approximate 
dating can then be attempted. 

In closing this chapter it should be pointed out that all direct quotations 
from French, German, Spanish, and Mayan authorities, which are especially 
numerous in the appendices, have been translated into English in order 
to make them more serviceable to the general reader. In all such cases, how- 
ever, footnotes indicate where the original passages may be consulted. 


CHAPTER II. 
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 


Any attempt to divide a series of monuments, arranged according to 
their relative positions in a stylistic sequence, into chronological periods 
must necessarily be more or less arbitrary. The more homogeneous and 
consistent the stylistic development, the more arbitrary (and in a sense the 
more unsatisfactory) are the resulting chronological subdivisions. This is 
particularly true of such an art sequence as that at Copan, where sculpture 
in stone was gradually and consistently developed for more than three 
centuries. Spinden in his earlier classification of the Copan sculptures! 
regarded everything after 9.0.0.0.0 and prior to 9.15.0.0.0 as belonging to 
the Early Period, and after 9.15.0.0.0 as belonging to the Great Period, 
eliminating altogether a middle or intermediate period. But such a classifi- 
cation, while sufficiently accurate for purposes of preliminary investigation, 
was found to break down upon closer study, especially at other sites. It 
necessitated placing within the limits of a single period sculptures-of very 
considerable stylistic dissimilarity—sculptures, indeed, as technically and 
esthetically different as the Apollo of Tenea (circa 550 8. c.) and the Chario- 
teer of Delphi (circa 470 B. c.). Indeed, for purposes of close chronological 
description it was found necessary to recognize a Middle or intermediate 
period between the Early and Great Periods, the limits of which are fixed 
at one end by the first appearance of sustained improvement in technical 
processes, treatment, carving, depth of relief, and the like, and at the other 
end by the final disappearance of archaism. 

Spinden, in another passage of the same work, virtually reached a similar 
conclusion himself: 


“The chronology of Copan may be summed up as follows: The earliest mon- 
uments are very crude and archaic, particularly in regard to the carving of the 
human face. A steady improvement is noted, extending from the ninth [Katun 9] 
to the fifteenth katun [Katun 15]. By the beginning of the fifteenth katun 
almost the last trace of archaic treatment had vanished. The brilliant period 
lasted until the middle of the sixteenth katun [Katun 16] and possibly somewhat 
longer.’” 

The only real difference between this classification and that suggested by 
the writer is that in the former the Early Period is made to end in 9.9.0.0.0, 
while in the latter it is extended to 9.10.0.0.0, another 20 years. 

On this latter date the first half of Cycle 9 came to an end, which, being 
a round number in Maya chronology, is a more appropriate as well as con- 
venient point at which to close a general stylistic period than the preceding 











1Spinden 1913, table 2. 2Tbid., 1913, p. 165. 
53 


54 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


katun. Indeed, in a recent article’ Spinden has accepted this threefold 
division of the Old Empire as suggested by the writer, not only for chrono- 
logical purposes, but also for stylistic classification as well. 

Giving due weight therefore to both lines of evidence, stylistic as well 
as chronologic, it has seemed best to subdivide the Old Empire, the inscrip- 
tions of which at Copan form the subject of the present investigation, into 
three periods as follows: 


The Early Period. From the earliest times down to 9.10.0.0.0. 
The Middle Period. From 9.10.0.0.0 to 9.15.0.0.0. 
The Great Period. From 9.15.0.0.0 to 10.2.0.0.0.? 


Having defined the limits of the several periods as hereinafter used, let 
us next ascertain what monuments at Copan may be referred to the Early 
Period. As already stated, the inscriptions at this city are more numerous 
than those of any other Maya site, and although they date from every period 
of its occupation as would naturally be expected, they are especially numerous 
from the Early Period. Indeed, in this latter respect Copan is surpassed 
only by Tikal, the great northern metropolis of the Old Empire, and prob- 
ably her most powerful rival (plate 1). 

So archaic and fragmentary are some of these earliest texts at Copan 
that it has been impossible to decipher them exactly and assign them to 
their proper positions in Maya chronology. That they precede the earliest 
surely dated monuments there, however, is clear from the earlier character 
of their glyphs. These are carved in very low relief, in some cases being little 
more than incised. ‘The technique is crude and the style undeveloped. 
They present, moreover, certain technical similarities with the most archaic 
inscriptions at Tikal, which are apparently of about the same period, notably 
in the irregularity of the outlines of the individual glyph-blocks, as shown in 
Stela 20 for example (plate 9, ) and figures 9 and 10), and in the omission of 
ornamental elements in the bar and dot numerals for 1, 6, 11, and 16, as shown 
in Altars X and Y (plate 8,c, ai, and plate 8, b, ai), and Stela 17 (plate 11, a, 
B3). Finally, pronounced complexity and elaboration in glyphic details are 
also characteristic of the sculptures of the Early Period, as shown in the 
extensive use of parallel lines in Stela 24 (figure 13), Stela 15 (plate 12), 
Stela 7 (plate 13), and Stela E (plate 14, a—c) for example. 

Toward the close of the Early Period at Copan notable advances were 
made in the art of sculpture. The portrayal of the human figure was 
attempted, and although the earliest efforts in this direction are somewhat 
lifeless, as in the case of Stele 18, 7, E, and P, for example, they clearly 
forecast the sculptural brilliance which was to follow a hundred years later. 





1Spinden, 1917, pp. 130-132. 

2The several periods of Maya history are given in Appendix II (see p. 505), and their presentation will not 
be anticipated here, except to note that there were two general divisions: the Old Empire extending from the 
earliest times to 10.2.0.0.0 and the New Empire from 9.14.0.0.0 to the Spanish Conquest in 1541. As Copan 
was probably abandoned before 10.2.0.0.0, only the Old Empire and its subdivisions concern us in the present 
connection. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 55 


There are 22 monuments! now known which may be assigned to the Early 
Period at Copan; and this number will doubtless be increased by further 
excavation. In the very nature of the case, the earliest monuments are the 
most deeply buried and are also those which suffered secondary usage the 
most extensively. 

Already in ancient times the practice of reusing earlier monuments in 
later constructions was prevalent. This seems to have been begun as early as 
Katun 9, 1. ¢., at the end of the Early Period, when part of Stela 24 was 
reused in the foundations of Stela 7, and was common throughout the Middle 
and Great Periods. It is particularly true in the case of the so-called banded 
altars, the only type of altar yet found, in the Early Period. These were 
repeatedly reused in the foundations of later monuments, as, for example, 
Altars J’ and K’ in the foundations of Stela 10, Altar X in the foundations 
of Stela 5, Altar Y in the foundations of Stela 4, and Altar A’ in the Hiero- 
glyphic Stairway of Mound 26. This practice, however, was not confined to 
the smaller monuments alone. ‘Thus, for example, in addition to the case 
of Stela 24 just noted, Gordon reports? that Owens found Stela 9 had been 
reused in the foundations of Stela 8, the former being a very early monument 
(9.6.10.0.0), and the latter a very late one (9.17.12.6.2). Again, the archaic 
stela, No. 17, found by Morris in 1912, had been reshaped into a building- 
block in such a way that part of the original design has disappeared. (See 
plate 11,a and b.) And in 1916, during the demolition of the mound at the 
southeastern corner of the village plaza for building material, part of the top 
of an archaic stela—No. 21—was found, which had been made over into a 
building-block in ancient times, all of the inscription being destroyed save 
only parts of three Initial Series introducing glyphs. (See figure 14.) 

During the excavation of Mound 9g at the Main Structure, a small slab 
of stone, Fragment S’, which had glyphs on the under side, was uncovered 
in the pavement on the eastern slope. It had obviously been reshaped for 
this secondary purpose and part of the inscription was missing. (See figure 
21.) Doubtless complete excavation of the site would bring to light other 
building-blocks showing similar secondary usage. As the city grew, the 
earliest monuments probably passed out of fashion—became obsolete as it 
were—and thus, having outlasted the purposes for which they were originally 
designed, and being in every case exceptionally good blocks of stone, they 
were occasionally reused in later constructions. 

The earliest monuments at Copan are Altars J’, K’, L’, M’, P’, and Q’, 
and Stele 20, 22, 24, and 25. Unfortunately, none but the next to last 
(Stela 24) has been surely dated; and two, Altars J’ and K’, do not have any 
glyphs at all. Of these earliest altars, all but one, P’, have the same design, 


1This does not include the altar of Stela E, since, as will appear later (pp. 109-114); its inscription is only a 
continuation of the text presented on the stela with which it is associated, and it is therefore to be considered as an 
/ 
integral part of that monument. The above total also takes no account of the several Fragments V’, and Fragment 
S’. since the former almost certainly belong to one or other of the several fragmentary stele and altars, which were 
“/ * . . . i P f 
found in their immediate vicinity, and which are already included in the above total. A list of the monuments 
which may be referred to the Early Period, with their provenance, is given in Appendix IX. 
2Gordon, 1896, p. 38. 





56 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


a large, grotesque serpent’s head, and on stylistic grounds all of these monu- 
ments, both stele and altars, may be referred with certainty to the earliest 
group of sculptures now extant at the site. 


ALTAR J’. 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Found in the foundations 
of Stela ro (Group 12), and now fallen several hun- 
dred meters down the slope to the east of this monu- 
ment. ( See plate 3.) 


Date: 9.0.0.0.0 tO 9.5.0.0.0. 
Text, photograph: plate 8, d. 


Altar J’ is 90 cm. long, 42 cm. wide, and 20 to 22 cm. thick. The top, 
left end, and front are sculptured, and the back is dressed but has no carving. 
The right end is rough, as if there were a piece broken off here. The bottom 
is plain. Two bands, crossing each other at right angles in the upper left- 
hand corner of the top, extend down over the sculptured end and front. 
The grotesque serpent’s head on the top also extends down over the front. 
The relief is very low, the carving being little more than outlined. The 
execution is crude and the design is simple. There are no glyphs on the frag- 
ment preserved and it is therefore impossible to date this monument exactly. 
Concerning its relative age, however, we are not entirely in the dark; since 
the date of Stela 10, under which it was found, is surely 9.10.19.13.0; Altar 
J’ must therefore be older than this. On stylistic grounds it may probably 
be referred to the early part of Cycle 9, perhaps to the first four or five katuns. 


/ ALTAR K’, 

Provenance: Original position unknown. Found in the foundations 
of Stela 10 (Group 12), and now fallen several hun- 
dred meters down the slope east of this monument 
with Altar J’. (See plate 3.) 

Date: 9.0.0.0.0 to 9.5.0.0.0. 

Text, photograph: plate 8, e. 

Altar K’ is in every way the sister piece of Altar J’, and may even bea 
part of the same monument. It is 58 cm. long, 42 cm. wide, and 20 to 22 
cm. thick, the last two measurements being identical with the corresponding 
dimensions of Altar J’.. As both J’ and K’ apparently have their right ends 
missing, it is not improbable that originally both may have been of the same 
length. The design is the same in each and is similarly presented. The 
top, one end, and front are sculptured, the back being dressed but having 
no carving. The remaining end is rough and shows a broken edge. The 
bottom is plain. Two bands crossing each other in the upper right-hand 
corner of the top extend down over one end and the front. There is also a 
grotesque serpent’s head on the top, crudely executed in the same low relief 
as that on Altar J’. 

On the sculptured end of Altar K’ there is what appears to be the lower 
part of the day-sign Ahau (O) . Unfortunately the upper portion 
is missing and with it the coefficient, if such were ever present. 
Because it was found in the same place and because of its close stylistic 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 57 


similarity, it has been assigned to the same period as Altar J’, namely, 
to the first four or five katuns of Cycle 9. 


INLTAR 7 


Provenance: Original position unknown, probably from just west of 
the pyramid at the southeastern corner of the village 
plaza (Group 9). Found built into the altar of the 
village church, when it was torn down in March 1915. 
Destroyed in 1916. (See plate 3 and figure 22, g 
and h.) 


Date: 9.4.0.0.0 to 9.6.0.0.0. 
Text, photograph: plate 8, /. 

Altar L’ is 1.7 meters long, 89 cm. wide, and 28 cm. thick. Only the 
top and front are sculptured. The top is divided by two vertical bands, one 
on the left, the other in the center. At the left of the central band is a panel 
of 6 glyph-blocks arranged in two vertical columns of 3 each (see plate 8, f); 
and at the right is a large, grotesque serpent’s head, similar to those on 
Altars J’ and K’, except that the one here has a human figure in its widely 
opened mouth. The front shows a continuation of the central vertical band, 
the space to the left again being filled with glyphs—4 double blocks—and 
that to the right with the familar twisted rope pattern QVYMWO.. The 
back and ends are dressed but not carved. The bottom is plain. Although 
the glyphs are well preserved, none are decipherable. The first, a1, has the 
coefficient 3, but the accompanying sign is indeterminate. Its suffix appears 
to be the moon-sign. B2 may beg cycles O-O-©O_9; the coefficient is clearly 
g, but the sign to which it is attached is too indistinct to identify 
with certainty. That the end of Cycle g is recorded here, how- 
ever, seems improbable, since the day on which this period ended, 8 Ahau 
13 Ceh, appears nowhere in the text. 

The remaining glyphs of the inscription both on the top and front are 
of unknown meaning. 

The style of the carving, although still crude and in low relief, is some- 
what better than that on Altars J’ and K’. It closely resembles Altar Q’ 
both in carving and arrangement of the design; and since the latter has been 
pretty definitely dated as 9.4.10.0.0, this monument has been referred to 
the same general period, 7. ¢., Katuns 4 to 6. 

During the writer’s last visit to Copan, additional evidence was secured 
as to the original provenance of both Altars L’ and M’. Of the three oldest 
inhabitants of the village in June 1919, Christina Ramirez, Pio Garin, and 
Maria Melendrez, all born between 1840 and 1850, two agreed that these 
two altars originally came from somewhere south of the church. Maria 
Melendrez believed they had been in the yard of a rancho which had formerty 
stood just south of the old church (figure 22, C), while Pio Garin stated that 
as a child he remembered them as just south of the large plain stela in front 
of the mound at the southeastern corner of the village plaza, 7. e., some 75 
meters farther south. (See figure 22, g and 7.) 


1As will appear later (pp. 88, 89) this important date is probably recorded on Stela 15 and certainly as one 
of the two Initial Series on Stela 3 (pp. 157, 158.) 








58 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Jacobo Madrid, one of the most intelligent of the middle-aged villagers 
(born in 1875) is inclined to accept Pio Garin’s story rather than that of 
Maria Melendrez on the grounds that as a child he was a frequent visitor to 
this rancho south of the church, and he believes he would have remembered 
these altars had they been there at that time. Christina Ramirez, the oldest 
inhabitant of the village, has no remembrance of them. 

The recollections of these three old people go back clearly to a time 
when the dense bush, which formerly covered the whole valley-floor, came 
right up to the present village plaza, and when the village itself was still 
only a small cluster of huts, not more than a dozen scattered through the 
forest, with small clearings here and there for each rancho. This was before 
the forest had been felled in the valley by the party of colonists from Guate- 
mala between 1860 and 1870, mentioned in Chapter I. 

Their testimony on this, as well as on other points to be treated later, may 
be accepted as correct. In the present case the story of Pio Garin has been 
followed, being corroborated to a certain extent by that of Jacobo Madrid; 
but it should be noted that the account of Maria Melendrez differs only by 
a few meters and both agree as to the part of the village from which these 
altars originally came. (See figure 22, g and 2.) 

In 1892, when the first church was built, they were removed thither and 
let into the high altar, where they remained for 23 years. (See figure 22, 
h and 7.) The writer first saw them in March 1915, after this building had 
been torn down to make room for the new church then in course of construc- 
tion, at which time the photographs shown in plate 8, f and g were taken. 
On returning to the village a year later, he found that a few weeks previous- 
ly both had been broken into small pieces by a mason from Santa Rosa 
for use in the walls of the new church and no trace of either was to be 
found. 


ALTaR M’, 


Provenance: Original position unknown, probably from just west 
of pyramid at southeast corner of village plaza 
(Group 9). Found built into altar of village church 
when it was torn down in March 1915. Destroyed 
in 1916. (See plate 3 and figure 22, 7 and 7.) 

Date: 9.4.0.0.0 to 9.6.0.0.0 

Text, photograph: plate 8, g. 

Altar M’ is 1.3 meters long, 61 cm. wide, and 29 cm. thick, and appears 
in every way to be the companion piece of Altar L’. The top and front are 
sculptured with the same design as Altar L’, and the top is similarly divided 
by two vertical bands. To the left of the right band is a panel of six glyph- 
blocks arranged in two columns of three glyph-blocks each; and to the right 
is the same grotesque serpent head as in the corresponding position on Altar 
L’, with the same human figure inits mouth. To the left of the vertical band 
at the left, the stone is broken, though traces of a sculptured design appear at 
the edge. The vertical bands on top continue down over the front and divide 
it into three fields; the center has a panel of glyph-blocks, while the right has 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 59 


the same twisted-rope pattern as in the corresponding position on Altar L’. 
The back is dressed but not carved. Both ends show fractured surfaces, and 
it is evident from the design on the top that a piece is missing from each, 
in which last particular Altar M’ differs from Altar L’. 

The glyphs are again well preserved, but unfortunately are undecipher- 
able. The first, Al, appears to be the cycle-sign preceded by 3 and sur- 
mounted by 11. Oj G2—, Its meaning is unknown. The omission of 
ornamental side el- 8 === ements in the number 11 should be noted. As 
already mentioned, a@@ this is characteristic of the Early eam 
A3 may be the kin-sign, although this identification is doubtful. The 
remaining glyphs are unknown. 

As already explained, the style of carving and the subject-matter are 
identical with those of Altar L’ and very similar to those of Altar Q’, for 
which reason Altar M’ has been assigned to the same general period, 7. ¢., 
Katuns 4 to 6 of Cycle 9. The left-hand ends of both L’ and M’ are prob- 
ably missing, since their original designs would appear to have been like that 
of Altar Q’: a pair of grotesque serpent-heads flanking a central glyph panel. 

The writer has been unable to find any previous reference either to this 
altar or to its companion-piece, Altar L’. As noted in the description of the 
latter, when he was in Copan in March 1915, the village church had just 
been torn down, and these two monuments had been removed from the high 
altar, but before he returned the following year both had been destroyed. 

Although the exact dates of Altars J’, K’, L’, and M’ can not be deter- 
mined, their relative ages may be accepted as established above. There is 
very little doubt on stylistic grounds, for example, that Altars L’ and M’ are 
later than J’ and K’. The technique of L’ and M’ is a little more advanced, 
the style a little more developed, and the subject-matter a little more 
elaborate. These differences, although slight in themselves, in the aggregate 
indicate a corresponding advance in sculpture and warrant the relative 
chronological sequence suggested above. 


ALTAR Q’. 


Provenance: Found on the mound of Stela 7 (Group 9). Now part 
of a wall behind the house of Domingo Hernandez 
in the southwestern quarter of the village. (See plate 
3 and figure 22, c’.) 

Date: 9.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol (?).? 

Text, (a) photograph: plate 24, f. 

(b) drawing: figure 6. 


In 1912 Spinden found four sculptured fragments of archaic monuments 
behind the house of Domingo Hernandez, in the southwestern quarter of the 





1In some provincial cities this practice obtained down to the latest times. For example, at La 
Honradez, in northern Guatemala (see plate 1), as late as 9.17.0.0.0, 1.¢., at the height of the Great 
Period, we find ornamental dots omitted in bar-and-dot numerals, the katun coefficient, A2, on the 
west side of Stela 7, being a case in point. Here the number 17 is recorded without an ornamental 0 
central dot. But the omission is due to provincialism rather than to archaistic treatment. 

2 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VITT. 





60 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


village. He was the first to call attention to them, and was then of the 
opinion that all four were parts of the same monument, to which he gave 
the name Stela 16.1. When the writer visited Copan in 1915, he gave these 
fragments a close examination, and by means of exact measurements, as well 
as a comparative study of their subject-matter, it was possible to prove that, 
instead of being parts of one and the same monument, at least three different 
monuments are represented here, fragments of two stele, 18 and 20, and one 
altar, Q’, two of the four fragments possibly belonging to the last. Because 
of the great importance of these monuments, particularly of Stela 20, which 
is probably the oldest stela now extant at Copan, and of Stela 18, which 
Spinden believes to be the first attempt to portray the human figure in front 
presentation at Copan, special efforts were made to ascertain their Cn 
provenance. 

The house of Domingo Hernandez was built in 1897 by Jacobo Madrid, 
who gives the following information about these sculptured pieces. He 
states that he himself carried all four of them, together with several other 
large unsculptured blocks and smaller sculptured pieces,” from the mound of 
Stela 7 (see figure 22) to their present position in order to use them in the 

walls of the house, as well as in the foundation of a low wall along the back 
corridor. 

This house was sold by Madrid in rgot to Siriaco Ard6n, who sold it the 
same year to Cristobal Melendez. From Melendez’s hands it passed to 
Clementino Lopez in 1903, thence to Manuel Sagastume in 1906, thence to 
Antonio Guerra in 1909, and finally to Domingo Hernandez, the present 
owner, in 1917. It has seemed advisable to give the history of this house in 
detail, so that future students will have no difficulty in tracing the pedigree 
of these highly important fragments and in establishing their eee 
provenance as the mound of Stela 7. 

Of the two pieces probably belonging to Altar Q’, the first is 91 cm. long 
and 39 cm. thick. In facing it, the left side presents a broken edge, and it 
is therefore impossible to give the original width. The present maximum 
width is 58 cm. ‘The top is very badly mutilated, most of the relief having 
scaled off. Traces of an interlacingof diagonalbands = appear in one 
place. The bottom and preserved side are dressed, L but not carved. 
The destroyed side was probably also plain. > 

The second fragment (see figure 6) shows this same treatment, 7. ¢., 
top sculptured, the bottom and back dressed but plain. It is 86 cm. wide 
and 40 cm. thick. The front and both ends are broken off, the present 
maximum height being 67 cm. The top of this second fragment is divided 
into three panels by two vertical bands which pass over the top from front 
to back, overlying the horizontal bands along the edges. (See top of figure 6.) 
The two lateral panels are incomplete. Both present the same subject, 
however, as Altars J’, K’, L’, and M’, namely, a large, grotesque serpent 





1 Spinden, 1913, table r. 2One of the two pieces of Stela 25 and Fragment V’ 1. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 61 


head. The middle field or glyph-panel originally contained four glyph- 
blocks; though most of the bottom block is now missing. From the part 
remaining, however, it is possible to estimate the original height of the top 
as having been 74 cm. As the first two glyph-blocks and upper horizontal 
band are 37 cm. high, the whole 
altar must have been twice this 
height, or 74 cm., of which the 
bottom 8 cm. are now missing. 

The thickness of these two 
fragments is practically the same, 
39 cm. and 4o cm. respectively, 
and it may well be that both 
were originally parts of the same 





monument. If so, it was over e ae 
1.78 meters long. +0 YY 
. . . . . Ye Z Y YH of Y YH “ey yy : Y 
The inscription is fairly Uy YMMV. YJ 


clear, with the exception of the 
last glyph-block. Unfortunately 
the loss of this glyph-block alone is sufficient to prevent exact dating, 
since it recorded the terminal day of the Period Ending date in a3b. (See 


Fic. 6.—Inscription on top of Altar Q’. 
















plate 24, f, and figure 6.) ‘This latter glyph is clearly the sign for the 
lahuntun or 3600-day period @yysy and should be interpreted as indicat- 
ing that Altar Q’ dates from acs one of these half-katun periods.!. The 
day closing the particular QS) lJahuntun here in question was re- 
corded in a4a, and although the day-sign itself (Ahau) and possibly part 
of the coefficient are missing, the date of the altar can be limited to one of 
four possible readings under our postulate, with the probabilities in favor of 
one in preference to the other three. From what is left of the day coeff- 
cients in ada, &28 it would appear to have been either 7 or 12, although 


6 or II or even 8 or 13 are not impossible readings. Two numerical dots 
appear and the possibility of another, now effaced, must be recognized. 
Inspection of the coefficient, therefore, gives 7 or 12 as the best values, with 
6, 11, 8, or 13 as remoter possibilities. 

There were 1o lahuntuns in the first half of Cycle 9, 7. ¢., during the 


Early Period, as follows: 


9.0.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Yax 
6.1,10,0.0 5, Ahau #3; Tzec 
g.2.10.0.0 3 Ahau 8 Cumhu 
9.3.10.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Mac 
g.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol 
g.5.10.0.0 10 Ahau 8 Zip 
9.6.10.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Pax 
9.7.10.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Zac 
g9.8.10.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Xul 
9.9.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Pop 





1The term “lahuntun” has been suggested by the writer for the half-katun or Io-tun period, lahun being 
the Maya word for ten. See Morley, 1917), p. 197 and plate 2 and Appendix II, pp. 566, 567. 


62 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Of these, the results of our preliminary inspection would give preference 
to the first or fifth, 9.0.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Yax or 9.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol, 
respectively, though between these two it is impossible to choose on the 
basis of anything now recognizable in the text. Moreover, it is even neces- 
sary to admit two other values, 9.6.10.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Pax or 9.7.10.0.0 6 
Ahau 13 Zac, as remoter possibilities. 

There are present, however, two other factors which make it extremely 
likely that 9.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol was the date originally recorded here. 
In the first place, historical probability as well as the stylistic criteria favors 
the later rather than earlier reading, and in the second place there is a stela in 
the immediate vicinity, z. e., No. 15, recording this same date (see pp. 86-89). 
Moreover, 9.0.10.0.0 is 40 years older than the earliest surely deciphered 
date at Copan (Stela 24), and if accepted would cause a lacuna of that 
length in the sequence of the sculptures. Again, the fact that there isa stela 
recording the later date, for which no corresponding altar has yet been 
found, itself renders the later reading the more probable. 

The case may be summed up as follows: Although exact proof is wanting, 
it is not unlikely that Altar Q’ may have recorded the lahuntun 9.4.10.0.0, 
the same as Stela 15, and in that case it may have been associated with Stela 
I5 in ancient times. If this reading is rejected, the next best appears to be 
9.7.10.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Zac, on the ground that the three dots of the day 
coefficient are obviously mot of the same size. 

The style of Altar Q’ closely resembles that of Altars L’ and M’. Indeed, 
if we assume that the missing left end of Altar M’, and probably of Altar L’ 
as well, presented the same large serpent heads as their respective right ends, 
only reversed, an assumption the writer favors, we have exactly the same 
design as on Altar Q’, 7. e., a panel of glyphs flanked on either side by a large 
serpent head and divided by the same arrangement of vertical and hori- 
zontal bands. The only difference would then be in the number of the 
glyph-blocks, Q’ having 4 and L’ and M’ 6. And further, since Q’ is almost 
certainly referable to the lahuntun 9.4.10.0.0, it is probable that L’ and M’ 
date from the same general period. Possibly being a little more complex in 
subject-matter, they may be slightly later, 9. 5.0.0.0 or 9.5.10.0.0, for example, 
although it is dangerous to push the stylistic criteria too far when objects 
and treatment are so similar. 

In closing the presentation of these five archaic altars, it should be 
pointed out that they are all tables, flat slabs of stone, which were intended 
to lie on their broad faces rather than stand on their ends or narrow faces. 
This is conclusively proved by L’ and M’, where the front narrow faces are 
sculptured with glyphs, the backs and bottoms being dressed, but plain. 
In other words, to have both the top and front designs appear right side up 
at the same time, it is necessary to have the stone lying on its plain broad 
surface, and face the narrow sculptured front. In this latter position only 
will the designs on both the top and front appear right side up. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 63 


ALTAR P’, 
Provenance: Found on the mound of Stela 7 (Group 9). Destroyed 
in I915 or 1916. (See plate 3 and hgure 22, d’.) 
Date: H10-0.070°t0 0,5 -0.0.0. 


During the writer’s visit to Copan in April 1915, he found at the western 
edge of the mound of Stela 7, in the yard of the house of Clementino Lopez, 
in the southwestern quarter of the village (see figure 22, d’), a badly effaced 
fragment of what appeared to be an archaic altar. Although only very faint 
traces of the original design were preserved, it was possible to distinguish the 
outlines of three glyph-blocks in a vertical column and one or two scrolls or 
circles above. The single side preserved was dressed, but not carved. The 
condition of the stone was such that it was unsafe to attempt to date it even 
upon stylistic grounds, other than to refer it to the early part of Cycle 9. 
It appears to have been destroyed about the same time as Altars L’ and M’, 
as the writer could not find it when he was at Copan in March 1916. 


ALTAR X. 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Found 1 kilometer west 
of the Main Structure in the foundations of Stela 5 
(Group 8). (See plate 3.) 
Date: 9.3. 6.17.18 11 Eznab 1 Kankin (?) or 
9.5.19.12.18 11 Eznab 1 Kankin (?) or 
9.8.12. 7.18 11 Eznab 1 Kankin (?). 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 8, c. 
(b) drawing: Gordon, 19024, plate 13. 
References: Gordon, 1896, pp. 42, 43. 
Gordon, 19024, pp. 130-132, 139-143. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 66, 67. 
Spinden, 1913, p. 161, 164, and table 1. 


Altar X is 1.22 meters long, 91 cm. wide, and 30 cm. thick. When found, 
it was serving as the pedestal of Stela 5, about a third of a meter below the 
level of the pavement of small stones which had surrounded this monument. 
It is sculptured on its top and four sides, with a design of bands crossing each 
other at right angles and dividing each sculptured face into four compart- 
ments of equal size. The top compartments are plain. Those on the long 
sides show human figures, and those on the ends are inscribed with glyphs. 
(See plate 8,c.) There are four of these glyph panels, each containing 4 
glyphs, a total of 16 for the entire text. The sculpture is in very low, flat 
relief. 

The first two glyphs, a1, B1 (plate 8,c), record a Calendar Round date,! 
which reads as follows: 11 Lamat or Eznab, 1, 2, or 3 Kankin. Since neither 
Lamat nor Eznab can occupy the third or fourth position in any month,’ 
it is obvious that the month coefficient recorded here must be that corre- 








1Calendar Round dates recurred at intervals of 52 years, and unless additional data are present (i. ¢., the 
corresponding Initial Series or Period Endings) they can not be assigned to their proper positions in Maya chro- 
nology. 

2The only positions either of these days could ever occupy were the second, seventh, twelfth, or seventeenth. 


64 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


sponding to the second position, namely 1.1. That is, the upper and lower 
dots in Bi are purely ornamental. An examination of the original, more- 
over, proves this to be the case, the upper and lower dots being clearly differ- 
ent from the middle one. (See plate 8,c, Bi.) We may therefore restrict 
this date to one of two possible readings, 11 Lamat 1 Kankin or 11 Eznab 
1 Kankin. Since both Lamat and Eznab may occupy the second position in 
any month, the identity of a1 can be determined only by a study of the 
internal characteristics of the sign itself. Whenever the normal form? of 
Lamat appears in the inscriptions, each of the four quadrants into which it is 
divided has a small circle in the center, thus: (==>) As such circles are en- 
tirely wanting in Ai, we must identify it as the sign for Eznab, the 
only other day-sign possible here. (Compare @JYJ® ai, plate 8, c, with the 
forms for Eznab in Bowditch, 1910, plate 6.) a1, B1, therefore, reads 11 
Eznab 1 Kankin. This latter date, as stated above, recurred at intervals 
of every 52 years in the Long Count,’® and therefore additional data are 
necessary if we are to determine the exact position in the Long Count 
which the ancient sculptors had in mind when they carved it. Finally, as 
such data appear to be lacking in the text itself, we must depend upon the 
style of the monument and its position in the stylistic sequence to settle this 
question. 

Fortunately a consideration of the style of Altar X leaves little room for 
doubt as to its position-in the stylistic sequence at Copan. For example, 
the omission of the ornamental elements on each side of the dot in the num- 
ber 11 in al is a fairly reliable indication that it belongs somewhere in the 
Early Period; and when this point is taken into consideration with other 
indubitably technical as well as stylistic crudities present, there can be no 
doubt that it is one of the earliest sculptures found there. Combining the 
data derived from these two independent lines of evidence, 7. ¢., the chrono- 
logic and artistic, it will be found that there are only three positions possible 
for the date 11 Eznab 1 Kankin in the Early Period, namely: . 





6.3;-04 715 11 Eznab 1 Kankin 
9.5.19.12.18 11 Eznab 1 Kankin 
9.8.12. 7.18 11 Eznab 1 Kankin 


But when it comes to choosing further between these three, we venture 
upon uncertain ground. Indeed, each has something that may be urged in 





1Owing to the Maya custom of recording only elapsed time, the first position in a Maya month was written 
zero, viz, O Kankin, the second position, 1 Kankin, the third, 2 Kankin, the fourth, 3 Kankin, etc. The second 
position, therefore, 7. ¢., 1 Kankin, is the only reading possible here. 

2Most Maya glyphs have two distinct forms: (1) the normal form and (2) the head variant. The latter, as its 
name implies, is a human, animal, or grotesque head. In the day and month-signs the head variants are charac- 
terized by the same essential elements as their corresponding normal forms; but in the period glyphs the two 
forms usually have little or nothing in common. See Morley, 1915, pp. 24, 25. 

3The Long Count is a term that has been applied to the old Maya chronological epoch. Dates are fixed in this 
period by the record of their corresponding Initial Series, 7. ¢., their distances from the starting point of Maya 
chronology. This method of recording dates, .as pointed out in Chapter I, was so accurate that a given date could 
not recur, filling all the given conditions, until after an interval of 374,000 years, and possibly until after 5,000,000 
years. See note I, p. 34. 


ias 


MORLEY PLATE 8 





a. Altar A', re-used in the Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26. 





b. Altar Y, re-used in the foundations under Stela 4. 





a) 


c. Altar X, re-used in the foundations under Stela 5. 





d. Altar J', re-used in the foundations e. Altar K', re-used in the foundations 
under Stela 10. under Stela 10. 





f. Altar L', destroyed in 1916. o. Altar M!, destroyed in 1916. 





: 7. le, 7 , 
LIBRARY 
oF THE 
UMiveRsiTY OF WLLINGIS 
i Lael nol 


«sd ES pein 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 65 


its favor. For example, if the first, 9.3.6.17.18, were the value originally 
intended for 11 Eznab 1 Kankin here, it would have a peculiar fitness, as 
being just two days before the end of a tun in the Long Count: 9.3.7.0.0. 

On the other hand, there are strong reasons for believing that Altars 
X and Y and Stele 16 and 17 are closely related; possibly X and Y originally 
having been the altars associated with Stele 16 and 17. If this is true, the 
second date, 9.5.19.12.18, was probably the one intended, since Stela 17 is 
known to have been erected some time in Katun 6 (p.go). This second value 
for 11 Eznab 1 Kankin, moreover, is only 102 days before the end of Katun 
Beet e.5.0.0.0.0.0. 

The importance of katun, lahuntun, and hotun-endings in the Maya 
system of counting time can not be overestimated,! and it is not at all 
improbable that the stela with which Altar X was originally associated may 
have recorded the date 9.6.0.0.0 9 Ahau 3 Uayeb. Indeed, Stela 17 itself 
may be this very monument, since it surely dates from Katun 6 and could 
hardly have been other than 9.6.0.0.0 or 9.6.10.0.0. 

In the present state of knowledge it is difficult, indeed unsafe, to press 
the evidence available as to the age of Altar X further than to state that this 
altar almost certainly may be assigned to one of the three dates suggested, 
with the probabilities in favor of the second. 

Gordon? suggests the reading 4.6.0.0.0.0 11 Ahau 3 Kankin for this date, 
based upon an exceedingly ingenious explanation of the decorative elements 
on the monument, 7. ¢., the bands and human figures. This reading is more 
than 250,000 years earlier than the earliest contemporaneous date found 
anywhere else in the Maya inscriptions, and for this reason alone it should 
be accepted with reservation. Its rejection, however, rests on firmer 
the interpretation he suggests for it. ‘The date actually recorded in al, B1, 
as we have seen, is not 11 Ahau 3 Kankin, but 11 Eznab 1 Kankin. Been 
admitting that the month coefficient looks as much like 3 as 1, it is impossible 
to identify the day-sign in Ai as Ahau. A study of the forms for Ahau’® 
elsewhere and also in this same text at H2 discloses no other form which 
bears the slightest resemblance to this, while its resemblance to the sign 
for Eznab on the other hand is striking. For these two reasons, then, 
(1) the inherent historical impossibility of such a remote date and (2) the 
impossibility of the day-sign recorded being Ahau, the writer has das 
Gordon’s reading. 

Some of the remaining glyphs of this text are familiar, but of unksiovin 
meaning, as cl, F2, Gi, and G2. The last glyph, 42, as already noted, 

3 Ahau. 


1This point is fully covered in Appendix VII and its presentation will not be anticipated here. 
2Gordon, 19024, p. 141. 
3Bowditch, 1910, plate 6, and in Appendix X. 





66 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


ALTAR Y. 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Found in the Great Plaza 
at the Main Structure in the foundations of Stela 4. 
(See plate 6.) 


Date: 9.4. 8.12.6 6 Cimi 19 Uo (?) or 
g.7- 1. 7.6 6 Cimi 19 Uo (?) or 
ae 2.6 6 Cimi 19 Uo (?). 


Text, (a) photograph: plate 8, b. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 103, c (front only). 
(b) drawing: — 1bid., plate 104. 
Gordon, 19024, plate 14. 


References: Gordon, 1896, pp. 42, 43. 
Gordon, 19024, pp. 130-132, 139-143. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 66, 67. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 161, 164, and table I. 


Altar Y is 1.22 meters long, 91 cm. wide, and 38 cm. thick. It was 
found buried in the ground underneath Stela 4, in the support of which it 
seems to have served. Its decoration is similar in every respect to that of 
Altar X. There are the same bands dividing the top and four sides into four 
compartments each, the same arrangement of figures in the four panels on 
the long sides, and of glyphs in the four panels on the short sides. Each 
glyph panel similarly has 4 glyph-blocks, making a total of 16 for the 
entire text. In size, shape, and decoration the two monuments are prac- 
tically identical. The text on Altar Y (plate 8,d), like that on Altar X, opens 
with a Calendar Round date, which the writer deciphers as 6 Cimi 19 Uo,} 
although the month-sign in B1 may possibly be Zip instead of Uo. 

As the main elements in the signs for Uo and Zip are identical 
(a pair of bands crossing in the center), one is frequently mis- 
taken for the other, and vice versa. The determining charac- 


ic in each case is the superfix (=) 
Sie es CB). 


(or prefix),* which in Uo has several variants but which in Zip is confined toa 











1A serious error should be noted in Gordon’s drawing of this text (1902a, plate 14, 3, B1). He shows the 
month coefficient thus: that is as 14, 2 bars and 4 dots, the first bar showing a decorative inner line. 


U) 
Tea Maudslay CY} (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 104, upper half, glyph 2) shows the correct month 
coefhcient 19, but makes 0 the right-hand bar thicker than the middle and left ones, and 
introduces an interior (J decoration in the dots, not present in the original. An exami- 
nation of the original showed that Maudslay’s drawing of the coefficient is substan- 
tially correct, except that all three of the bars are practically of the same thickness. Gordon’s error 
seems to have arisen through mistaking the line between the first and second bars for a decorative 
element of the first bar, thus reducing the number of bars from 3 to 2 and making the coefficient 14 instead of 19, 
?There are four other month signs Chen, Yax, Zac, and 
Ceh, which have their main elements alike. These also are (Gay C22) 
to be distinguished from each other only by their super- (7 
fixes or prefixes. It should be noted in this connection that 
the superfixes in the signs for Zip and Ceh are identical, = 
the only difference between thetwo signs being their main elements. 
See last two signs above. 
3In one text at Copan, Altar Q, £6, the Uo superfix is wanting altogether. —— 
In this case the main element takes the unusual form shown herewith. eee 
<——~S 










INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 67 


single form.! él[s él COP) The superfix in Bi (plate 8, 4), how- 


ever, bears a strong resemblance to the first and 
second variants of the Uo superfix just given, and at the same time is 
totally dissimilar to any of the known forms of the Zip superfix. The reading 
6 Cimi 19 Uo therefore appears reasonably certain.” 

This date occurred in Cycle 9 within the limits stylistically probable at 
three® positions, namely: 


9.4. 8.12.6 6 Cimi 19 Uo 
O.7tn7 0 6:Cim to Us 
9.9.14. 2.6 6 Cimi 19 Uo 


Whichever of these values is chosen, it will be found that it is within 21 
years of one or other of the three values already given for Altar X, viz: 


9.4.8.12. 6 ey Fa ay Pan 9.9.14. 2. 6 
9.3-6.17.18 g.§-19.12.18 S812. 7.15 
PPE He ge Bye Pee lah 2c.0 SoCisk oo 


In other words, although the dates of Altars X and Y may be 73 or 
even 125 years apart,‘ in view of their very close stylistic similarity, they 
were probably only 21 years apart, which is as near as their dates will 
permit them to be. Therefore, if we could establish the date either of Altar 
X or Altar Y, the corresponding date in the other set would probably be 
correct for the other monument. Unfortunately, viewed in the light of 
Altar X, the most probable date for Altar Y would be the second value 
given above, whereas, judged on its own merits alone, the first is the only 
one of the three which has anything particular that may be urged in its 
favor. To begin with, 9.4.8.12.6 is less than two years earlier than the 
date of Stela 15, which is 9.4.10.0.0. 

Again, this date is only 104 days earlier than the next tun ending in the 
Long Count, 9.4.9.0.0. Finally, it is only 454 days earlier than one of the two 
best readings for Stela 16, 9.4.9.17.0. Even in spite of these rather satis- 
factory connections with other monuments, it appears unwise in the absence 
of more definite evidence to accept this reading as final or to reject altogether 
the other two possibilities. Further consideration of the date of Altar Y 
will be deferred until after Stele 16 and 17 have been described. 

The remaining glyphs of this text are either unfamiliar or of unknown 
meaning. 











1In three texts at Copan, namely, Stela N(east side), ats, Altar L, a2, and the reviewing stand on the south 
side of Mound 11, vi, another variant for Zip seems to have been used. These three 
texts date from the same decade (9.16.10.0.0 to 9.17.0.0.0), and the close > 
between their three forms for Zip may be due to the personal equation WON Po of a single 
sculptor. At least, the above variants have not been found elsewhere, and { |B aS) at Copan 
they appear only during this particular decade. 

2In order that the student may draw his own conclusions, however, Appendix X should be consulted, where 
all known occurrences of all the day and month-signs in the Copan inscription are listed. 

3The very earliest occurrence of 6 Cimi 19 Uo in Cycle 9, 1. ¢., 9.1.15-17.6, is not included above, as it is too 
early to be either historically or stylistically probable. 

4That is 1 or 2 Calendar Rounds +1.1.12.8. sweesery OF ILEING! 





68 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


ALTAR’ A’. 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Found on the under side of 
the last block of Step P of the Hieroglyphic Stairway 
on the west side of Mound 26 at the Main Structure. 
(See plate 6.) 

Date: 9.3.0.0.0 tO 9.7.0.0.0. 


Text, photograph: plate 8, a. 
Gordon, 1902, plate 13, U. 
Spinden, 1913, plate 20, I. 


References: Gordon, 1902, p. 19. 
Gordon, 19024, p. 130. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 66, 67. 
Spinden, 1913, p. 161, and table 1. 


Altar A’ was found during the excavation of the Hieroglyphic Stairway 
of Mound 26, on the under side of the last block in Step P (see p.251, note 2), 
having been cut down from some larger monument in ancient times.’ In 
reshaping it for secondary use here, part of the original design was broken off 
and is nowmissing. Judging from the fragments preserved, the original monu- 
ment must have closely resembled Altars X and Y, though the arrangement 
of the intersecting bands is slightly different. On Altar A’ three vertical 
bands and one horizontal band divide the field of the single sculptured sur- 
face preserved into four panels of 4 glyph-blocks each, making a total of 16 
glyph-blocks for this one side alone. The difference between this monument 
and Altars X and Y is that the two latter have no horizontal bands crossing 
their short sides where the glyphs are presented. Consequently, there are 
only two glyph panels on each short side of Altars X and Y as compared 
with four glyph panels on Altar A’. Unfortunately, in reshaping this block 
for use in the Hieroglyphic Stairway, the upper row of glyphs was broken 
off clear across the top, and since the date was probably presented in the 
upper left-hand corner, as on Altars X and Y, it is impossible to fix the 
position of this monument in the Long Count. The remaining glyphs have 
escaped interpretation up to the present time, although a few are not unfa- 
miliar. It is safe, however, to assign Altar A’ to the same general period as 
Altars X and Y on the basis of its close stylistic similarity, apparent in execu- 
tion, subject-matter, and arrangement. With Altar A’ we reach the last of 
this type of monument in the Early Period, and turn next to a considera- 
tion of the early stele, of which there are 13 now known. 

STELA 22. 
Provenance: Found on the north side of a small plaza on the south- 
western outskirts of the village (Group 9). Now in 
| the cabildo. (See plate 3, and figure 22, w’.) 
Date? * 9.3.0.0.0 tO 9.5.0.0.0. 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 28, b. 
- (b) drawing: figure 7. 

Only a single small fragment of this stela was found. (See figure 7.) The 
part recovered is 53 cm. long, 47 cm. wide, and 32 cm. thick. From the size 
of the glyph-blocks preserved, 16 cm. high by 21 cm. wide, it was possible to 


estimate the original width of the monument to have been 58 cm. 


1Gordon, 1902, p. 19, and 1902a, p. 130. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 69 


This fragment was found in a small plaza on the southwestern outskirts 
of the village on the edge of the bank or terrace which overlooks the flood- 
plain of the river. (See figure 22, w’.) It was lying on the north side of this 
plaza in front of a low platform mound approached by five broad steps on its 
southern side. Although there was very little débris in this court, excavations 
were made on the north side with the hope that other fragments might be 
recovered, but nothing was found. Indeed, it is more than probable that the 
other pieces have been destroyed. In March 1916, when this fragment was 
found, the blocks of stone forming the stairways of the mounds surrounding 
this court had been removed and were about to be broken up for paving 
material for the streets. The single piece recovered may have been removed 
from one of these steps, and it was rescued from destruction only by the 
writer’s chance visit at the time. It is presumably part of a stela, but of very 
archaic character. The front is sculptured with glyphs, the back and left 
side being plain, having been dressed smooth by pecking and rubbing. The 
right side was missing, as well as the top and bottom. There is a’ plain 
marginal band along the left edge of the front. This presentation is unique, 
and almost raises the question whether this fragment ever belonged to a 
stela, possibly having been part of an altar. The arrangement of the glyphs 
in two vertical columns, however, suggests a stela, and for this reason it 
has been so identified here, On the basis of the arrangement of the design, 
which is the simplest possible, 7. ¢., one surface sculptured, the other three 
being left plain, Stela 22 has been assigned to Class 1. 

Parts of 6 glyph-blocks are preserved, and although none is of recog- 
nizable form, they all clearly indicate the archaic character of the inscrip- 
tion. Note the highly ornamented numerical bars in a2 and the archaic 
prefix in B2. The latter is identical with the prefix of co on Stela 15 @@UUR 
and of Bs on Stela 9 @32583 and very similar to that of Bs on Stela 24. 
But these three monuments are very early, 9.4.10.0.0, 9.6.10.0.0, and 
9.2.10.0.0 respectively, for which reason Stela 22 also has been assigned to 
Katuns 2 to 4. 















STELLA ES: 


Provenance: Found on the mound of Stela 7 (Group 9). Two frag- 
ments only recovered. Now in the cabildo. (See 
plate 3, and figure 22, f’ and g’. 

Date: 9.2.10.0.0 3 Ahau 8 Cumhu (?). 

Text, drawing: hgure 8. 


Only two contiguous fragments of this monument have been recovered 
up to the present time, both from the southwestern quarter of the village, 
one having been found behind the house of Clementino Lopez in the mound 
of Stela 7 in 1918 (figure 22, f’), and the other 40 meters to the northwest at 
the house of Domingo Hernandez in 1919 (figure 22, g’). These two frag- 
ments were fitted together in June 1919 and found to be parts of a new 
monument, to which the name Stela 25 was given. 

Fortunately the history of the Hernandez house is well known (see 
p. 60), and it is possible to establish the fact that the fragment found 


70 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


there in 1918 had been carried thither from the mound of Stela 7 in 1897 
during its construction. (See figure 22, e’.) 

When fitted together these two fragments make one piece, which 
originally formed a part of the right half of the front (or back) of a stela, 
the adjoining surface to the right being dressed but not sculptured, and 
that to the left being rough, as though a part were broken off here. 





Fic. 7.—Inscription on front.of Stela 22. Fic. 8.—Inscription on front (or back) of Stela 25. 


The single sculptured surface of the assembled piece (see figure 8) 
shows parts of two glyph-blocks, 34 cm. wide and at present 21 cm. high. 
And if, as the writer believes, the two upper signs are parts of the same 
glyph-block as the two lower ones—and no space shows between the two 
characters in the upper half of the glyph-block (see figure 8)—the glyph- 
blocks on this monument originally must have been 30 cm. high. Finally, 
if the piece recovered represents only the right half of the monument, as 
seems possible, its total width originally must have been 66 to 68 cm. It is 
possible, however, that the piece as found, represents the original width of 
the monument, in which case it was only 33 or 34 cm. wide. 

The only surely decipherable character is the lower left-hand glyph in 
the upper glyph-block, which unmistakably records the day 3 Ahau. This 
is surmounted by a tassel-like ornament practically identical with that just 
described as occurring in the day-signs on Stel@ 24, 15, and 9. 

This glyph is followed by a sign, the coefficient of which is surely 8. 
Parts of three other signs show, but they are all of unknown meaning. 

In order to decipher this date, it is first necessary to make the following 
postulate, namely, that this day 3 Ahau stood either at the end of some 
katun or lahuntun of the Long Count. This postulate, as will appear at the 
end of this chapter, is amply substantiated by practically all the stele of the 
Early Period at Copan, and if hotuns, 7. ¢., quarter katuns, be included, it 
is substantiated by 95 per cent of all stele throughout the Maya area. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 71 


As applied to Stela 25, this postulate restricts the number of places 
where this day 3 Ahau could have occurred in the first half of Cycle 9 to 2 
places out of a possible 277, one a katun-ending, A, and the other a lahun- 
tun-ending, B, as follows: 


9.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh 9.0.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Yax 
g.1.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Yaxkin g.1.10.0.0 § Ahau 3 Tzec 
g.2.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Uo B 9g.2.10.0.0 3 Ahau 8 Cumhu 
9.3.0.0.0 2 Ahau 18 Muan 9.3.10.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Mac 
9.4.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Yax 9.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol 
9.5.0.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Tzec 9.5.10.0.0 10 Ahau 8 Zip 
9.6.0.0.0 9 Ahau 3 Uayeb 9.6.10.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Pax 
9.7.0.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Kankin 9.7.10.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Zac 
9.8.0.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Chen g.8.10.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Xul 

A 9.9.0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Zotz 9.9.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Pop 


The foregoing tabulation shows that under our postulate there are only 
two readings possible for this date in the first half of Cycle 9, namely, A, 
9.9.0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Zotz and B, g.2.10.0.0 3 Ahau 8 Cumhu; and of these it 
can be shown that the latter is by far the better choice. 

In the first place, 9.9.0.0.0 is too late on stylistic grounds for the glyphs 
of Stela 25 to have been executed, which, as we have seen, more closely 
resemble those of Stele 24, 15, and 9 (9.2.10.0.0, 9.4.10.0.0, and 9.6.10.0.0 
respectively) than those of Stele 7, E and P (9.9.0.0.0, 9.9.5.0.0, and 
9.9.10.0.0 respectively); and in the second place, the earlier reading receives 
remarkable corroboration from the coefficient of 8in the next glyph. For in 
the event of the latter being the correct reading, the next glyph might then 
be 8 Cumhu, that is, the corresponding month part of the Initial Series 
terminal date, 9.2.10.0.0 3 Ahau 8 Cumhu. 

It is true the human head to which this 8 is attached bears little or no 
resemblance to any known form for the month Cumhu,! but it should be 
borne in mind in this connection that at the early period Stela 25 was 
carved, many glyphs had not yet developed the characteristics by which 
they were distinguished in later times, and that the glyph in question may 
therefore possibly be an early form for this month. 

The corroboration afforded by finding the appropriate month coefficient 
(7. e., 8) in the following glyph more than counterbalances the failure to 
discover in the sign itself recognizable characteristics of Cumhu, and the 
writer therefore believes that the date here recorded is probably 9.2.10.0.0 
3 Ahau 8 Cumhu. This date appears as the Initial Series on Stela 24 (see 
pp. 80, 81), and at first it seemed possible that these two fragments might 
be parts of that monument; but a comparison of their glyph-blocks immedi- 
ately showed that this never could have been the case, those on Stela 24 
being 18 to 19 cm. high and 27 to 28 cm. wide, and those on Stela 25, 30 cm. 
high and 34 cm. wide, and it was therefore necessary to recognize this piece 
as part of another stela, to which the number 25 has been given. 








1See Bowditch, 1910, plate 10, and Appendix X, p. 592. 


72 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


STELA 20. 
Provenance: Found on the mound of Stela 7 (Group 9). Now in the 
cabildo. (See plate 3, and figure 22, 2.) 
Date: g.1.10.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Tzec (?). 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 9, dD. 
(b) drawing: figures 9, 10, and II. 


The largest fragment of Stela 20 (figure 9 and plate 9, b), and in fact the 
only one whichis surely a part of this monument, was found by Spinden in 1914, 


in the house of Domingo Hernan- 
dez. In 1916, however, the writer 
discovered two other widely scat- 
tered fragments (see figure 10), one 
built into the wall of the house of 
Pedro Ramirez in the street lead- 
ing south from the southwestern 
corner of the village plaza, and the 
other in the foundations of the now 
destroyed house of Felix Galvan, 
just east of the new market on the 
street leading west from the same 
corner, and some 1oo meters distant 
from the first. (See figure 22, y 
and z respectively.) On_ being 
assembled, these last two fragments 
were found to fit together exactly and thus 





Yo 
“Gy 
SZ 


Fo 0 
(S/T) Sy 


(1) 
(ge 
Sita 


aaa 











Fic. 9.—Inscription on front and right side of Stela 


20 (Fragment 1). 


to have been parts of the same 


monument; and in the discussion which follows they will be referred to as 
one piece. Theimportant question, however, is whether or not this second 
piece is a part of the same monument as the fragment found by Spinden 


in the house of Domingo Hernandez in 1914. 






Uj 





Uy Le Mf 
Y, 


Fic. 10.—Inscription on back and sides of Stela 20 (Fragments 2 and 3). 


The answer to this question must be ascertained, first from the measure- 
ments of the two pieces, next from their subject-matter, 7. ¢., the inscription, 


and finally from the stylistic criteria present. 
pieces are compared on page 73. 


The measurements of the two 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. rs 


It will be seen from the measurements below that both pieces are of the 
same width, 52 cm., but since both are only fragments, the present heights 
have no significance. Further, as the pieces can not be fitted together back 
to back, it is impossible to determine the original thickness of the monument 
exactly. Judging from the incomplete glyph-blocks on their respective 
sides, the latter must have been of unusual width, at least 23 to 24 cm. and 
22 cm. respectively, that is, wider than the glyph-blocks on their correspond- 
ing fronts. This almost certainly indicates that originally there had been 
only one column of glyph-blocks on the sides of each. And on the basis of 
this assumption, the former thickness of each piece can be estimated to have 
been about 40 cm. 


From houses 
of Ramirez 
and Galvan. 


From house 
of Hernandez. 


Dimensions of the fragments : cm, cm. 
LAE Ree oe eo te hc 2 52 
Presentibeight 5 260d x04 sues. VhS 64 
Present: thickness............. 30 20 


Dimensions of the glyph-blocks: 
Front and back: 


ie ee eeocare Cae 16 to 18 16 to 16.5 

MT ee ees Sere 19 to 20 19 to 20 
Sides: 

i EPL Oe Cee ee 16 to 19 17 to Ig 

Presentiwilttiry. 7.0: «oe. 23 to 24 22 








Continuing this comparison, it will be noted that both pieces have double 
columns of glyph-blocks on one of their two broad faces and that the opposite 
broad faces are fractured. 

The measurements of their respective glyph-blocks show even more 
satisfactory agreements. The widths—the important measurement, if both 
are parts of the same monument—are identical, 19 to 20 cm., and the heights 
vary by less than 2 cm. at the most. On the sides it is impossible to secure 
the original widths, but the heights are the same in both cases, 

This identity in the essential measurements, not only of the two pieces 
but also of their respective glyph-blocks, strongly suggests that both are 
parts of the same monument; but if so, how were they related. All attempts 
to fit them back to back on the ground failed, and indeed it was apparent 
that the two fragments recovered never could have fitted together in that 
way. It will appear presently, in the discussion of the inscription, that the 
fragment found by Spinden in 1914 was surely a section of the front of the 
stela, coming from immediately below a top section, 1.14 meters long by 
calculation, which presented the Initial Series. Since the piece found in 
1916 is only 64 cm. long, and could not have been from the front in any case, 
it seems more probable that it came from a lower section of the same stela 
(if it belongs to it at all) instead of from the top, as this missing top was 50 
cm. longer, if it broke in one piece. The best assemblage of the two pieces 
is shown in figure 11, where the second piece is placed at the bottom. 


74 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Spinden supposed the fragment found by him to be a part of Stela 18, 
but its inscription indicates that this could not have been the case. 

This fragment, as just noted, was clearly from the middle part of a 
monument. This fact is established by internal evidence in the text itself 
on the front (see plate 9, b, and figure 9), which unmistakably records a com- 
plete Supplementary Series. 

Let us analyze this evidence further. 
So far as the writer knows, there is not a 
single instance in the Maya inscriptions 
where a Supplementary Series is recorded 





avle . . ° aa = ee ee 
t at an Initial Series does not immediately iz 
precede it; but the reverse of this propo- idaobii cae 
ae ae PLS FY hs re tae 


sition does occur, 7. ¢., the record of an 
Initial Series without an accompanying 
Supplementary Series, although rarely. 
Therefore it is safe to conclude that the 
fragment shown in plate 9, b was originally 
preceded by one or more fragments which 
presented an Initial Series. 

The last glyph Sy gniaZ in plate 9, 
b isthe month-sign © © “ ofan Initial 
Series terminal date,! but unfortunately the 
fracture runs across its lower half, and 
beyond the fact that the coefficient is surely 
3, it is difficult to determine at first inspec- 
tion what month-sign was recorded here. 

Making the same postulate as in the 
case of Stela 25 (p. 70), namely, that the 
Initial Series of Stela 20, whatever it was, 
recorded a katun, lahuntun, or at least a 
hotun? ending in the Early Period, it will be ,¢ 11—Diagram showing probable assem- 
shown presently that the possible readings blage of Fragments) team 
for this Initial Series, which could have 
had a month coefficient of 3, under our postulate are limited to ten. 

Further, the fact that the month coefficient of the Initial Series terminal 
date on Stela 20 is 3, is at least strong presumptive evidence that we have 
here either a katun, lahuntun, or hotun ending, since these only could end 


1That this glyph could possibly be the day of the Initial Series terminal date would appear highly unlikely 
from what is left of it. The part preserved looks like a superfix, 7. ¢., it curves in at both ends, and is ornamented 
with lines unlike any known forms of the day-sign cartouche. This in itself renders such a possibility extremely 
remote, even if such a position for the day-sign were not contrary to the general practice of recording the day at 
the end of the Initial Series number, and not at the end of the Supplementary Series. Out of 80 Initial Series, only 
7.5 per cent. were found to have the Initial Series terminal date follow the Supplementary Series. See Morley, 
1916, p. 368, note I. 

2The term “hotun” has been suggested by the writer for the quarter katun or 5-tun period, “ho” being the 
Maya word for five. This whole question, 7. ¢., what chronological considerations controlled the erection of the 


stele, a matter which very closely touches their probable function and significance, is extensively reviewed in 
Appendix VII, and also in Morley, 19172. 


wee = = —----- 


ee ee 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 75 


on days the corresponding month coefficients of which were either 3, 8, 13 
or 18.1 It is therefore presumptively probable that the missing Initial 
Series of this monument recorded the end of some katun, lahuntun, or 
hotun in the Early Period. Referring to Goodman’s tables,’ it will be 
found that there were ten katuns, lahuntuns, and hotuns in the Early 
Period, that ended on days the month coefficients of which were 3, namely: 


g.0.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Yax 9.5-15.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Uo 
g.1.10.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Tzec 9.6. 0.0.0 g Ahau 3 Uayeb 
g.2.15.0.0 9 Ahau 3 Kayab 9.7. 0.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Kankin 
9.3-15.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Ceh 9.8. 0.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Chen 
9.4.15.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Yaxkin 9.9. 0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Zotz 


Because of the extremely archaic style of Stela 20, which is surely 
earlier than that of Stela 24, the date of which is definitely fixed as 9.2.10.0.0, 
it is possible to eliminate all but the first two values in the above list. To 
choose further between these, however, it is necessary to depend upon inter- 
nal evidence supplied by the month-sign itself, that is, the last glyphs in 
plate 9, b, and figure 9. Unfortunately the lower half of this glyph is missing. 
The upper half, however, is fairly clear, and as it bears no resemblance to 
any of the known forms for Yax,* the first value above may be eliminated, 
which leaves the second as the only possible reading for this date under our 
postulate. Moreover, inspection of what is left of the month-sign shows 
that its superfix has a series of parallel lines (2) which is characteristic of 
the superfix of the sign for the month Tzec; and on the strength of @7> 
this corroboratory evidence from the text itself it seems not unlikely ep 
that the date of Stela 20 may be g.1.10.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Tzec. ar 

The correctness of this reading, it is obvious, rests upon the truth of our 
two postulates: (1) that Stela 20 dates from the early part of Cycle 9, and 
(2) that it records an even katun, lahuntun, or hotun ending in the Long 
Count. Concerning the first, let us examine the stylistic criteria present 
and see where this monument is to be assigned on stylistic grounds. As 
already pointed out, the style of Stela 20 is probably more archaic than that 
of any other monument at Copan. Indeed, in order to find monuments of 
equal or greater age, from which comparative stylistic criteria may be 

1All time periods above the kin or day in the Maya chronological system ended on some one of the thirteen 
days Ahau. And since Ahau could have only a corresponding month coefficient of 3, 8, 13, or 18, all hotun-endings 
were thereby automatically restricted to one of these same four numerals for their month coefficients. 

2For deciphering Maya dates, as well as performing other calculations arising therefrom, the use of Good- 
man’s Archaic Annual Calendar and Goodman’s Archaic Chronological Calendar is strongly recommended. See 
Goodman, 1897. Other tables, although somewhat less convenient, are those devised by Gates. See Gates, 
1g00. A longer method involving reduction of the Maya terms to the decimal system was first used by Forste- 
mann in his pioneer work on the Maya hieroglyphic writing. See Férstemann, 1887, p. 36. Aside from any 
sentimental interest attaching to this method as being the first, it is also probably the most readily comprehended 
by the European mind, because it reduces the Maya periods to the terms of our own decimal notation. For an 
extended treatment of this method, see Morley, 1915, particularly Chapters III and IV. Bowditch (1910, Appen- 
dix VIT) has devised a method which considerably decreases the amount of purely arithmetical work in performing 
the different calculations present in the inscriptions, and R. K. Morley (1918) has developed this method even 
further. While the greater brevity of these is conceded, their use by beginners is hardly to be recommended, 
because of the complexity of the arithmetical principles upon which they depend; and for performing the common 


calculations present in the inscriptions, Goodman’s tables are more convenient and expeditious. 
§See Bowditch, 1910, plate 10, also Appendix X. 


76 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


derived, it is necessary to look to Tikal, the only other city now known 
which can lay claim to an equal antiquity with Copan. 

Tikal is probably the site best suited for the study of the art of the 
Early Period. Four of the five earliest dated stele in the Maya area are 
found here,? and there are also more undated archaic monuments here than 
at any other site, Copan not excepted.’ 

The most constant characteristic of all the earliest stele at Tikal is the 
pronounced irregularity in the outlines of the individual glyph-blocks. 

Two examples, one from Stela 3 and the other from Stela Io, will suffice 
to illustrate this point. On Stela 3 a2 ©O._ 1s the katun-sign and coeffi- 
cient. Note how irregular the outline S_4) of this glyph 
is, and how inadequately it fills the drs {9 available space. 
On Stela 1o a31 the uinal-sign and coefficient, also show the 
same characteristic. 

In later times, both at Copan and elsewhere, the glyph-blocks assumed 
more or less rigid rectangular outlines with only the corners slightly rounded, 
but in Stela 20, which represents perhaps one of the first attempts to carve 
an inscription upon stone at Copan, and probably the earliest monument 
yet found here, this regularity in glyphic outline had not yet been achieved. 

The earliest stela yet found in the Maya area, No. 9 at Uaxactun, has 
this same characteristic. The glyph-blocks are not only irregular in outline, 
but also unevenly arranged in the two vertical columns; that is, a glyph- 
block in one column is not always exactly opposite the corresponding 
glyph-block in the other. (See figure 66.) 

Two other pieces of sculpture still more archaic, the Leyden Plate and 
the Tuxtla Statuette, also present this same characteristic. The Leyden 
Plate is a small celt-like object of nephrite about 21.6 cm. long, 8.5 cm. wide, 
and 2 to 5 mm. thick, upon the front of which a late Cycle 8 Initial Series, 
8.14.3.1.12, is incised. The point claiming our particular interest in this 
connection is the fact that on this very early celt, which antedates Stela 24 
at Copan and Stela 3 at Tikal by some 170 years, and Stela 9 at Uaxactun 
by 7 years, the outlines of the glyphs are even more irregular. (See figure 65.) 

The uinal glyph of the Initial SE Series here, as, well illus- 
trates this peculiarity. Not only is i} the uinal-sign itself very 
irregular in outline, but its coefficient also is asymmetrically 
placed with reference to it.* 





Lory 













1Uaxactun (see plate 1) has earlier dates than Tikal, but it is so near by, not more than 25 kilometers 
distant, that it undoubtedly was tributary to the larger city, and has been considered here as one with it. 

*Uaxactun, Stela 9, 8.14.13.10.15, and Stela 3, 9.3.13.0.0; Tikal, Stela 3, 9.2.13.0.0, and Stela 10, 9.3.11.2.0(?); 
and Copan, Stela 24, 9.2.10.0.0. In the next to last case (Stela 10 at Tikal) there is some doubt as to the value of 
the kin coefficient. However, if it were 19, the highest value possible, the above reading is correct to within 20 
days of the true date. To these should be added the doubtfully dated: Stela 5 at Uaxactun, 8.15.10.3.12; 
Stela 8 at Tikal, 9.0.10.0.0; and Stela 9 at Tikal, 9.2.0.0.0. 

’The writer is inclined to believe that of the 17 sculptured monuments described by Maler (1911, pp. 61-91) 
at Tikal, all but 3 or 4, Stele 5, 11, and 16, and possibly 6, belong to the Early Period, and most of them prob- 
ably to its earliest part, : 

‘For further particulars concerning this interesting specimen, see Leemans 1877, pp. 299-301, Holden 1881, 
pp. 229-237, Morley, 1915, pp. 196-198 and Chapter V, pp. 411, 412. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 77 


The Tuxtla Statuette, a small anthropomorphic figure about 16.5 cm. 
high and 9.5 cm. in diameter at the base, is also of nephrite. It presents a 
still earlier Cycle 8 Initial Series, namely, 8.6.2.4.17, which antedates Stela 
24 at Copan and Stela 3 at Tikal by more than 300 years, and Stela 9 at 
Uaxactun by about 150 years. Here again the outlines of the glyphs are 
still more irregular and sketchy. (See figure 63.) 

The first glyph on this figure, a1, probably the Initial Series intro- 


ducing glyph, illustrates the extreme of irregularity in glyphic outline; 
indeed, there appears to have been only a very casual attempt to make 
this glyph- block rectangular at all.! 


From the foregoing it is apparent that irregularity of glyphic outline is 
the most reliable criterion of archaism in glyph delineation—the more 
archaic the text, the more irregular the outlines of its glyphs. This is 
perhaps a natural consequence of transferring a graphic system developed 
upon wood or fiber-paper to stone, since the earliest attempts at glyphic 
delineation on stone could hardly have had the same rigid rectangular out- 
lines as those made after the sculptors had had long experience with the 
new medium. 

Returning to Stela 20, it is possible that in this monument we have 
the only one at Copan which presents this extremely archaic characteristic; 
and so far as its stylistic position is concerned, there can be no doubt that 
it is the earliest stela, if indeed it is not the earliest monument of any 
type yet found here, being certainly prior to Stela 24, the earliest surely 
deciphered stela, and probably prior to Altars J’, K’, L’, M’, P’, and Q’ as 
well. 

Concerning the second of the two postulates above upon which the read- 
ing suggested rests, namely, that Stela 20 records a katun, lahuntun, or 
hotun-ending, it should be noted that the vast majority of all Maya stele 
do record such endings and that antecedent probability therefore is over- 
whelmingly in its favor.’ 

In conclusion, therefore, it appears that notwithstanding the fact that 
this inscription is fragmentary, only one glyph out of the original eight in 
the Initial Series being preserved, the stylistic and textual corroboration is 
so satisfactory that the date suggested may be accepted as probably correct 
and the stela itself regarded as the oldest monument so far discovered at 
Copan. 

On the basis of the arrangement of the subject-matter, Stela 20 has been 
assigned to Class 3, 7. ¢., all four faces sculptured with glyphs, Class 2 (not 
encountered so far) being reserved for monuments sculptured on two opposite 
faces, the remaining faces being left plain. 





1For a complete description of this most important object, see Holmes, 1907, Morley, 1915, pp. 194-196. and 
Chapter V, p. 403. 
2See also Appendix VII. 


78 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


STELA 24. 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Found in the foundations 
of Stela 7 (Group 9). Nowinthe cabildo. (See plate 3, 
and figures 12, 5, and 22, q.) 


Date: g.2.10.0.0 3 Ahau 8 Cumhu. 
Text, drawing: figure 13. 


With Stela 24 we reach at last firm chronological ground, this being the 
earliest monument at Copan the date of which has been surely deciphered. 
Only a single piece has been found, probably not more than a quarter of the 
original monument, although possibly as much as a third of the sculptured 
part. The fragment recovered is 61 cm. high, 73 cm. wide, and 29 cm. thick. 
The front and back are sculptured with glyphs, the two sides being plain, 
though dressed smooth. 

This arrangement of the design is a step beyond that seen in Stele 22 
and 25 (Class 1), where only one face, 7. ¢., the front, is sculptured with glyphs, 
the remaining three faces being left plain; and somewhat less advanced 
than Stela 20 (Class 3), where all four faces are sculptured. On the basis of 
arrangement, therefore, Stela 24 may be assigned to a new class, 2. 

The circumstances surrounding the discovery of this fragment are of 
especial interest because of its unusual importance, already noted, no less 
than that of presenting the earliest date yet deciphered at Copan about 
which there can be no doubt. 

In August 1916 the writer received a letter from Copan stating that a 
“piece of stone inscribed with hieroglyphics” had been found recently during 
the course of some excavations in the village; but it was not until May of 
the following year that he had an opportunity of examining this fragment 
at first hand, and of ascertaining the circumstances which surrounded its 
discovery. 

During the early part of the summer of 1916, Clementino Lopez, living 
near the southwestern corner of the village plaza (see figure 22, F), was dig- 
ging a well in the yard behind his house, and required some stone with which 
to line it. In the middle of this yard there is a low mound of earth and stone 
70 cm. high, 27 meters long north and south, and 17 meters wide east and 
west, near the eastern edge of which Maudslay had found Stela 7 lying in 
1885.! (See figure 18, b.) Lopez had dug into this mound for stone to line 
his well, and at a depth of about half a meter below the surface he found a 
pila or cylindrical altar with a depression in its top (figure 12, d). This is 
46 cm. high, 56 cm. in diameter at the top, and tapers toward the bottom, 
being 39 cm. in diameter at the base. 

Just below this altar was found the fragment of Stela 24 shown in figure 
13 (for its position, see figure 12, b), which in turn rested directly upon a 
large, plain-rectangular slab of stone 1.62 meters long (north and south), 
g6 cm. wide (east and west), and 29 cm. thick (figure 12, a). Above this 
slab and closely packed in around the altar and stela-fragment were many 


1See pp. 102, 103. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 79 


small broken stones laid in lime mortar, the remains of the two pavements 
of lime-plaster and the strata of small broken rock of which the mound of 
Stela 7 was composed. (See figure 19, b, c, d, f, and g.) 

There is little doubt but that this slab is 7m situ and was the foundation- 
stone upon which Stela 7 had originally rested. (See pp. 103-105.) All 
circumstances point to this conclusion. In the first place, Stela 7 was 
found lying on the surface of the ground only 2 meters from this slab, 
presumably just where it had fallen. Again, this foundation-slab is of the 
same general size and shape and was found buried about the same distance 
below the surface as others used for this same purpose elsewhere; and finally, 
certain measurements on Stela 7 itself tend to confirm this conclusion. 

















+) - 


‘Ch aa 

—— 

Fic. 12.—Sketch showing position of fragment of Stela 24 found in 
1916, resting on foundation-stone of Stela 7: a, founda- 
tion-stone of Stela 7; 5, fragment of Stela 24; c, Stela 
7; d, small altar with depression in top. 


ké 
y, 


Just below the sculptured panels on Stela 7 there is a shallow groove 
which runs clear around the monument, the bottom of which is 90 cm. above 
the bottom of the monument and 33 cm. below the glyph-panel. ‘The gener- 
ally accepted explanation of this is that the stone or concrete flooring of 
the court where this stela stood fitted into this groove and tended to lock 
the monument more securely to its foundation. 

If this explanation is correct, the floor-level of the court where Stela 7 
originally stood fell somewhere between the bottom of this groove and the 
bottom of the glyph-panel when the monument was upright, 7. ¢., between 
go cm. and 1.23 meters from the bottom of the monument. Returning once 
more to the foundation-slab under Stela 24, its top surface was found to be 
1.02 meters below the present level of the ground, that is to say, the top of 


rye) THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


this groove would have come just where the flooring of the court touched the 
stela. (See figure 19 for a cross-section showing these details.) 

The provenance of Stela 7, the discovery of a foundation-stone just 
below where it was found, and finally the above measurements, leave little 
doubt that this monument formerly stood here and, more important still, 
that a fragment of Stela 24 was reused in its foundations. ht 

Before developing this point any further, let us first examine the inscrip- 
tion on Stela 24. This is presented on the front and back, the former showing 
parts of 6 glyph-blocks (figure 13, a), and the latter parts of 5 (figure 13, d). 
The glyphs on the front are as clear as though they had just left the sculptor’s 
hands, and they unmistakably record the date 9.2.10.0.0 3 Ahau 8 Cumhu. 
(See figure 13, a.) 


acs ie) « 





Fic. 13.—Inscription on Stela 24: a, front; >, back (only one fragment recovered). 


The first glyph-block on the front records 9 cycles, the line of fracture 
passing through the upper part of the block. The upper dot and the upper 
end of the bar of the coefficient are missing, but judging from the height of 
the complete glyph-block just below, 18 to 19 cm., the coefficient originally 
recorded could have been none other than 9g. 

Since this fragment begins with the cycle-sign and coefficient, it is 
evident that the Initial Series introducing glyph occupied the space of four 
glyph-blocks above it, 7. ¢., Ai-B2, and that including the missing parts of 
the cycle and katun-signs and coefficients and the plain band across the top, 
the stela originally extended another 49 cm. above the top of the fragment 
found. 

The katuns follow the cycles in 83. The coefficient is clearly 2, in spite 
of some loss of detail and of the upper half of the upper dot. The lower dot 
has the same interior treatment, 7. ¢., parallel lines, as the dots of the cycle 
coefficient. “The period glyph is also partially effaced. | 

The next glyph-block, a4, is perfect, and unmistakably records 10 
tuns. The upper left hand corner of the next block, B4, is effaced, but 
both the period glyph and coefficient are clear as 0 uinals. 


MORLEY PLATE 9 





a 


Stela 18. b. 
Stela 20. 





G d. es e. 
Stela 21. (c) Back? (d) Side. (e) Front? 





o, 
Altar O'. (g) Front. (f and h) Sides. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 81 


The kins, as, are all gone, except the upper right-hand corner of the 
period glyph; however, the day-sign in the next block, Bs, is so clearly 
Ahau that the missing kin coefficient may be safely restored as o. 

The day-sign coefficient at first appears confusing. The lower left-hand 
corner of this glyph-block is missing, and with it has gone part of the coeffi- 
cient. The same ornamental element seen in the day-signs on Stele 25, 15, 
and g—of all the other stele the most closely related to Stela 24 both in 
point of time as well as in style—is also found in the upper left-hand corner 
of this glyph-block. The coefficient of the day-sign is below this. One dot 
and part of another are still preserved, and to fill out the glyph-block 
properly it is necessary to postulate the former existence of a third of equal 
size below these two, indicated in dotted line in figure 13, a. The upper dot, 
moreover, shows the same use of parallel lines in its interior decoration as 
do the dots in the cycle and katun coefficients above, and it is therefore 
evident that this coefficient must have been either 2 or 3, 7. ¢., two numerical 
dots with an ornamental element between or three numerical dots. 

Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that the Initial Series 
number 9.2.10.0.0 leads to the terminal date 3 Ahau 8 Cumhu, and the day 
recorded in Bs is therefore 3 and not 2 Ahau. The Supplementary Series 
and the month 8 Cumhu were recorded on the next piece below, but this is 
still missing: 


Fragment 1 missing A1-B2= Initial Series introducing glyph 
Fragment 2 A3= 9 cycles 

Fragment 2 B3= 2 katuns 

Fragment 2 A4=10 tuns 

Fragment 2 B4= 0 uinals 

Fragment 3 missing As= (o kins) 

Fragment 2 B5= 3 Ahau 

Fragment 3 missing (8 Cumhu) 


The inscription on the back (figure 13, 2) presents no decipherable glyphs. 
p3 has a well-known ending prefix and cs is a beautifully executed death’s 
head, having all the well-known Maya skeletal characteristics—the fleshless 
lower jaw, the prominent upper teeth, the truncated nose, the large bony 
eye-socket, here filled with what may be a realistic attempt to represent the 
cranial sutures,! and the many small spots, almost invariably associated by 
the Maya with death. 

The very early date recorded upon Stela 24—the earliest surely deciph- 
ered at Copan, and 3 tuns earlier than the earliest yet found at.-Tikal, her 
great northern rival—makes this monument one of the riost’ important: of 
the whole Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum. Very few indeed are of greater 
antiquity or even equal age; hence the stress here laid upon the circum- 
stances attending its discovery. 








1The resemblance of this eye to the sign for the day Eznab is so obvious as to suggest that there may have 
been some connection between the two. The sign for Eznab may be a representation of the cranial sutures, par- 
ticularly since these lines are wavy. See Bowditch, 1910, plate 6, Morley, 1915, figure 16, and Appendix X. 
This day is very rarely recorded in the inscriptions and its avoidance may have been due possibly to its resemblance 
to a death’s-head characteristic and the consequent association of the idea of death with it, of which the Maya 
stood in great fear. 


82 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


It was erected, as we have seen, on the third lahuntun-ending of 
Cycle 9, viz, 9.2.10.0.0, but where can not be established. It would seem 
probable, however, that it must have stood at or very near the place where 
it was found, namely, at Group 9, where the modern village now stands, 
which, as will appear later, was probably the earliest permanent settlement 
in the valley. 

Some 128 years later, in 9.9.0.0.0, we find a piece of it, indeed the most 
important piece of all, since it carries the dedicatory date, was built into 
the foundations of Stela 7. 

This practice of reusing earlier monuments in the foundations of later 
ones was fairly common at Copan in the Middle and Great Periods, but so 
far as the writer is aware, this is not only the earliest example of this practice 
but also the only example yet reported from the Early Period. 

What is the explanation of this custom? Was it in compliance with 
some religious concept, or had it no other foundation than the purely utili- 
tarian purpose of making use of old monuments which had outgrown their 
usefulness? Spinden believes that it may have had a ceremonial significance 
and is possibly another expression of the custom of placing caches of bowls, 
vases, etc., in the vaults or chambers under the monuments, as in the cases 
of Stele 3, 1, 1, M, C, and 4, the latter, perhaps, analogous to our own cus- 
tom of depositing current periodicals, coins, photographs, and the like in 
corner-stones. 

It appears to the writer as not improbable that such reuse of their ear- 
lier monuments by the Maya may have been made for some religious pur- 
pose; in short, that such a practice was “good medicine.” If, for example, 
the lahuntun ending in 9.2.10.0.0 had been a particularly prosperous one, 
in which the crops were unusually fruitful, it would not be an unnatural 
or illogical assumption for the primitive mind that the monument which 
had been erected to commemorate this particular period had partaken of 
its beneficent character; and further, that if such a monument were placed 
in the foundation of a later one, a like period of prosperity and plenty might 
be made to follow. In the present case, the fact that the piece of the monu- 
ment used for this purpose was the one upon which the date was recorded 
might be interpreted as being due to deliberate selection, and thus lend 
color to the idea; but amid such speculations the purely utilitarian explana- 
tion should not be overlooked, namely, that by 9.9.0.0.0, Stela 24 may have 
outlived the purpose for which it was originally designed, and being a 
selected piece of stone in the first place, large as well as strong, and more- 
over already shaped and dressed, it was used in the foundations of Stela 7 
as being convenient, suitable and available for that purpose.! 

Since this fragment of Stela 24 was buried only 128 years after it had 
been carved, its remarkable preservation is easily explained. The detail, at 
least on the Initial Series side, seems to have preserved most, if not all, of its 


1Other examples of this custom will be found elsewhere at Copan as follows: Altar J’, p. 56; Altar K’, p. 56; 
Altar X, p. 63; Altar Y, p. 66; Stela 9, p. 93; Stela 21, p. 95; Stela 22, p. 69; Altar A’, p.68; and Fragment S’, p. 121. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 83 


original clearness and brilliancy, traces of the red paint with which it was 
originally covered still adhering in some places. The relief is uniformly 1 cm. 
deep, and conside1ing the extremely early date at which it was executed 
is fine work. Although low and flat, it possesses strength and character and 
already indicates an almost perfect control of the medium, much more so, for 
example, than the work being done at Tikal at the same time, 7. ¢., Stela 3. 
The glyphs on Stela 24 have already assumed the rectangular outline which 
was to characterize Maya glyphic delineation throughout the Old Empire, 
but which did not appear at Tikal until later. | 

We have already seen that there is only one other monument now known 
at Copan which has glyphs of an earlier and less rectangular character, 
namely, Stela 20 (9.1.10.0.0). The fact that this irregularity of outline had 
disappeared at Copan by the time Stela 24 was erected, probably only 20 
years later, therefore tends to authenticate on stylistic grounds the fact 
that Stela 20 was the earlier of these two. 

Another early feature of this inscription is the lack of specialization in 
the essential characteristics of its period glyphs. The cycle-sign lacks the 
hand on the lower part of the face; the katun-sign, the oval in the upper 
part of the head; and the tun-sign, the fleshless lower jaw. Indeed, the only 
period-glyph which would appear to have developed its distinguishing charac- 
teristics as early as this is the uinal-sign, which is the full figure of a toad. 

The uinal would seem to have been the first period to have acquired 
special characteristics. In the Leyden Plate Initial Series the uinal-sign is 
the only one of the five period-glyphs which has the same essential element 
as that by which it was recognized in later times. This lack of specialization 
is in itself an indubitable mark of antiquity, since it indicates that at the 
early date this inscription was carved the period-glyphs, with the exception 
of the uinal-sign, had not yet developed the special characteristics by which 
they were severally known later. 

A close similarity in a minor detail between Stela 24 at Copan and Stela 
3 at Tikal should be noted here, namely, that the day-sign cartouche in the 
Initial Series terminal date of each has a pair of small tassel-like protub- 
erances, one from each of the upper corners. In the Copan glyph there 
is another in the lower right-hand corner as well. The presence of this 
minor detail—and since it is repeated nowhere else in the whole range of 
the Maya writing we must believe an adventitious one as well—at two such 
widely separated cities as Copan and Tikal argues for close intercourse 
within the area at a very early date, and a correspondingly early homo- 
geneity of culture. 

The question as to which of these two cities was the older will be fully 
presented in Chapter V, and that discussion will not be anticipated here, 
except to note that although Stela 24 at Copan is earlier than any date yet 
deciphered at Tikal, and although Stela 20 is probably still older, there are 
strong grounds for believing that the northern metropolis is probably the 
older of the two. 


84 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


STELANIO. 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Placed by the Second Pea- 
body Museum Expedition at the head of Owens’s 
grave in the Great Plaza at the Main Structure in 
1893. (See plate 6.) 


Date: 9.4.9.17.0 5 Ahau 8 Yaxkin (?) or 
9.7.2.12.0 5 Ahau 8 Yaxkin (?). 


Text, (a) photograph: plate 10, a and b. 
(b) drawing: plate 10, a and b. 


No reference is made in any of the Peabody Museum publications to 
this sculptured fragment, although it is the upper part of a very early stela. 
Neither has it been possible to ascertain just where it was found. When 
first examined by the writer in 1910, it was standing at the head of Owens’s 
grave inthe Great Plaza, though obviously not 7m situ here. A sister monu- 
ment, Stela 17 (see p. 90) was found on the terrace just north of the Great 
Plaza, a few yards west of Mound 2 (see plate 6), which suggests that Stela 16 
also may have come from somewhere in this general vicinity. 

The fragment preserved is 1 meter long, 63 cm. wide, and 42 cm. thick. 
It is sculptured with glyphs on both broad faces, the narrow sides remaining 
plain. On the basis of arrangement of design, therefore, it may be assigned 
to Class 2. Both inscriptions open with large Initial Series introducing 
glyphs ai-B2 and ci-p2; the variable element on the side not presenting 
the Initial Series is the normal form of the kin-sign.! 

The text opens with an Initial Series introducing glyph (see plate Io, a) 
in Al—B2, which is followed by an Initial Series number in a3—Bs. Unfor- 
tunately almost all the carving on this side has scaled off, carrying with it 
the details of these glyphs. Enough remains to distinguish faint traces of 
the cycle coefficient in a3a and the katun sign in B3b, but not enough to 
decipher the date. The line of fracture runs across the tun and uinal signs; 
consequently, the Initial Series terminal date—if it were recorded on this 
side—is missing. 

Happily, the back of the monument is in a better state of preservation 
(see plate 10,b). The text on this side also opens with an Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph followed by a Calendar Round date, which, so far as the writer 
knows, is unique throughout the entire range of the Maya inscriptions in 
having its month-sign precede its day-sign. As recorded, this date very 
clearly reads 8 Yaxkin 5 Ahau, which can hardly be other than an inversion 
of 5 Ahau 8 Yaxkin. 

This date occurred four times in the Early Period, as follows: 

reey iy ae 


9.4. 9.17.0 
Qrazii2.0 
6-011 Sa07.0 
It should be noted in this connection that the variable elements in the introducing glyphs of the Initial Series 


on the Leyden plate and also on Stela 23, at Santa Rita (Group 1, plate 3), and Dates 20 and 28 of the Hiero- 
glyphic Stairway, are the same. 








INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 85 


The first and last of these, however, may be eliminated at once, on the 
ground of historic and stylistic improbability, the first being as much too 
early as the last is too late. 

Of the two remaining dates, 9.4.9.17.0 has more in its favor than 
g.7.2.12.0 for the following reasons: 


1. It is just 1 uinal or 20 days earlier than the end of a tun, hotun, and lahun- 
tun in the Long Count, and 
2. It is within I uinal or 20 days of the date of another monument here, Stela 


15 (9.4.10.0.0). 


On the other hand, the later value would be nearer the date of Stela 17, 
which is some time in Katun 6, and which on stylistic grounds this monu- 
ment more closely resembles than any other. An entirely different explana- 
tion, however, is possible here, although one less likely to be correct than the 
preceding, since it necessitates a forced reading of the original before it 
becomes possible at all. 

In plate 10, b, the glyph immediately following 5 Ahau in a3 has a co- 
efficient of 5 and a hand at the right side. Can this possibly signify that 
the preceding inverted Calendar Round date was a hotun-ending, the head 
between the 5 and the hand in B3 being some unknown early form of the 
tun-sign? 

Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that there are only three 
hotuns in the Early Period which ended on the day 5 Ahau, as follows: 
g.1.10.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Tzec; 9.4.15.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Yaxkin, and 9.8.0.0.0 5 Ahau 
3 Chen; and of these, the only one at all possible here is the second, which 
agrees with the date in a3, except for its month coefficient, which is 3 instead 
of the 8 recorded. 

It is barely possible, though not probable, that the bar in the month 
coefficient of a3 is ornamental and not numerical, and that this date is 5 
Ahau 3 Yaxkin and not 5 Ahau 8 Yaxkin, as it first appears to be. If this 
is true the corresponding Initial Series is almost certainly 9.4.15.0.0. 

Against this reading, however, must be offset the fact that the month- 
coefficient certainly looks more like 8 than like 3, and also that using it as 3 
gives a third hotun as the resulting date, 7. ¢., 9.14.15.0.0, which would be 
by nearly a century the earliest example of the record of a quarter katun 
yet found at Copan. Indeed, as the several monuments of the Early Period 
are described hereinafter, it will be seen that at first the custom seems to 
have been to commemorate only the lahuntuns and the katuns by the erec- 
tion of stele, and that it was not until the very end of the Early Period 
that the quarter katuns were similarly commemorated.’ 

Before attempting to decide, even tentatively, however, upon any of 
these dates, it is best to describe Stela 17, the sister monument, after which 
a better choice can be made.” 





See p. 126. 2For the discussion of Stela 17, see pp. 89-93. 


86 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


STELA’ 15. 
Provenance: Found on the mound of Stela 7 (Group 9). Now in the 
cabildo. (See plate 3 and figure 22, s.) 
Date: 9.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol 


Text, (a) photograph: Morley, 1915, plate 13. 
Spinden, 1913, plate 23, 2. 
(b) drawing: plate 12. 


References: Morley, 1915, pp. 187, 188. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 160, 163, 164, and table 1. 


The vicissitudes through which Stela 15 has passed during the last 
three-quarters of a century well illustrate what has happened to many of the 
monuments of Group 9, where the modern village now stands. 

When the writer first visited Copan in 1910 the two larger pieces of this 
monument (fragments 1 and 2) were built into the east wall of a house at 
the northwestern corner of the village plaza. (See figure 22, 4, and wu.) Infor- 
mation received then and in 1912 led to the discovery of a third and smaller 
piece (fragment 3) in 1915 (see figure 22, 7), and during the writer’s last visit 
additional data as to the history of this monument were secured. 

Mariano Madrid, the father of Jacobo Madrid, first came to Copan in 
1891, when he bought the property on the southern side of the plaza at the 
southwestern corner, from Anita Acevédo. (See figure 22, G.) At that 
time this property was surrounded by a stone wall, the only one of its kind 
in the village, which was still only an aldea or hamlet, the municipality not 
being organized until two years later.’ 

Jacobo Madrid states that fragments 1 and 2 were built into the founda- 
tions of the stone wall along the eastern side of this property at that time. 
(See figure 22,t.) Three or four years later (1894 or 1895) his father built the 
house at the northwestern corner of the plaza, and in order to secure large 
stones for the foundations of its adobe walls he tore down this stone wall and 
removed these two fragments to this other house, where the writer first saw 
them in 1910 (see figure 22, ~), whence they were subsequently removed 
to the cabildo in 1913. 

But Anita Acevédo was not the original owner of the property where 
these fragments were first described, nor was her husband, Juan Villeda, the 
builder of the stone wall where they were found. 

Maria Melendrez, one of the oldest inhabitants, states that Anita 
Acevédo bought this property from an Ana Carlos Orellano about 1865 
(7. e., when the informant was 16, being about 70 now) and that the stone 
wall was already built when she first remembers this place. 

Cristina Ramirez, the oldest inhabitant of the village, has recollections 
of still an earlier period. She states that as a child she was accustomed to go 








1The municipality of Copan was organized on January 1, 1893, by the following men: Teodoro Destephen, 
Indalecio Guerra (alealde), Emilio Cuellar (first regidor), Cristébal Melendez (second regidor), Mariano 
Madrid (sindico), and J. Manuel Collar (secretario interino), Guadelupe Lopez being the first regular secretary of 
the municipality. Teodoro Destephen and J. Manuel Collar were not residents of Copan, but signed the organiza- 
tion papers, the former in his capacity as commandante and the latter as secretario of Santa Rita, under the juris- 
diction of which Copan had been heretofore. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 87 


to this house to buy cheese and remembers distinctly when the stone wall 
in question was being built by the husband of Ana Carlos Orellano, Domingo 
de Aguilar. She recalls the laborers carrying the stone that went into it, 
but not the fragments of Stela 15 specifically, although she remembers 
them afterwards as having been in the wall. 

When questioned as to her age at this time, she replied that she was still 
a little girl. If she is now 75, and her grandchildren believe she can be no 
less, and if she were about 10 when the wall was being built, it would make 
the wall date from about 1854 or, allowing a slight leeway either way, roughly 
from the decade 1850-1860. 

However, even this does not establish the original provenance of Stela 
15, and indeed it was only by the chance discovery of a third fragment of 
this monument in 1915 that it has been possible to establish its former posi- 
tion at all. 

In examining the mound of Stela 7 in that year, the writer discovered a 
small fragment having only one glyph on it, which looked as though it might 
be a part of Stela 15. He had this carried over to the cabildo, where frag- 
ments 1 and 2 of this monument had already been deposited, and it was 
found to fit against the lower end of fragment 2. (See figure 22, 7.) 

This discovery was important as establishing beyond much doubt that 
the original provenance of Stela 15 had been the mound of Stela 7; that 
fragments 1 and 2 had been removed from here some time between 1850 
and 1860 for use in the foundations of the stone wall above described; and 
finally, that because it was only a small and irregularly shaped piece, frag- 
ment 3 had been left undisturbed at the mound of Stela 7 practically an situ. 
When these three fragments were assembled they measured 1.89 meters 
long, 76 cm. wide, and 42 cm. thick. 

The inscription covers all four sides, each side opening with an Initial 
Series introducing glyph. The variable element in all of these except the 
one above the single Initial Series number is the same, : the 
variable element in the other being a grotesque head. On ALE) the 
basis of arrangement of design, therefore, Stela 15 may be assigned to Class 3. 
Spinden was the first to call attention to the early character of this monu- 
ment. He suggested as its probable date 9.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol.' After 
a close study of fragments 1, 2, and 3, the last not seen by Spinden, the 
writer was able to corroborate this reading.” 

The single Initial Series opens with an introducing glyph in ai-s2 
(plate 12). This is followed by 9 cycles in a3—B3 and 4 katuns in a4—B4. 
Here occurs the break described above, and then follows on fragment 2, 








1Spinden, 1913, pp. 160, 163, 164. 

2Since Spinden’s conclusions regarding the archaic character of Stela 15 were based largely upon stylistic 
criteria, it is significant that the date actually recorded on this monument indicates a corresponding antiquity. 
This is but one of the many agreements between the chronological sequence and the stylistic sequence of the 
monuments throughout the Maya area, an agreement so complete in fact as to prove beyond all doubt the chrono- 
logical sequence of Maya art. 


88 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Io tuns in AS—B5, and o uinals in acs-Bo. The kin-sign is recorded at B7 on 
fragment 3; the kin coefficient and terminal date are missing. 

Arguing from antecedent probability in such Initial Series (7. ¢., where 
the tun coefficient is either 0, 5, 10, or 15, and the uinal coefficient 0), the 
missing kin coefficient can hardly have been other than 0; and we may 
assume that a lahuntun-ending in the Long Count was probably recorded 
here, 9.4.10.0.0. That this assumption is correct, the writer was able to 
demonstrate by the discovery of a lahuntun-sign on fragment 2, thus con- 
firming this reading. 

An examination of the mound of Stela 7 in 1912 had disclosed several 
small fragments, one of which appeared to have the coefficients of the 
terminal date of Stela 15, as deciphered. by Spinden, 1.¢., 12 (Ahau)! 8 (Mol), 
e200 CCS the day-sign, and the greater part of the month-sign having 

f—— >) been broken off. And in 1915, when the writer next visited 
Copan, he had this piece removed to the cabildo, where it was there found 
to fit exactly against the bottom of fragment 2, and was, in fact, a part of 
Stela 15. The front of this new piece shows the kin-sign of the Initial Series 
number (B7, plate 12) just below the full-figure form of the uinal, 7. ¢., the 
toad or frog in B6. 

Curiously enough, what had been mistaken for the day and month 
coefficients 12 and 8 respectively of the Initial Series terminal date on the 
back of this fragment in 1912, on closer study in 1915 turned out to be 12 or 
7 (?) 6 (?), or the coefficients of another date. O20 Ey Thus the former 
reading, incorrect as it later proved to be, ——~<— = was the means of 
identifying this fragment as a part of Stela 15. 

The last glyph on the back of fragment 2 (F6d), 
side opposite the Initial Series, is the well-known ¥ sign for the 
lahuntun, which is used only on monuments, which cy record the 
ends of second hotuns (7. ¢., lahuntuns) in the Long Count. Its presence 
here renders practically certain Spinden’s reading of this Initial Series. As 
already suggested, Altar Q’ probably records this same lahuntun-ending 
and may have been the altar originally associated with this stela. (See p. 62.) 

One of the narrow faces of Stela 15 has the month-sign 13 Kayab (c3) 
following the Initial Series introducing glyph (ci-c2). It is impossible, 
however, to connect this with any other date in the text. 

A more interesting and perhaps a better understood 
date occurs in D5—p6 on the same side, in which ce, D6 WAU 

JY, 
possibly records the Calendar Round date 8 Ahau 13 ?, Ga 
the month-sign being a human head. ps appears to be a tun-ending sign, 
although this identification is not certain. 

Assuming that the date 8 Ahau 13 ? ended some even tun of the Early 
Period, it can be found from Goodman’s tables that there are only six 












GNI 


—~ 
= 
iz 


1. €., on the 


) 





mer 
a an) 
ry 











‘Matter inclosed in parentheses does not appear in the text as preserved. Such omissions are due to one of 
two causes: either the missing part may have been effaced or broken off, as here, or, as in other cases, it may have 
been understood, 7. ¢., supplied mentally, without the necessity of actually recording it. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 89 


places where the conditions imposed by these two coefficients are fulfilled, 
namely: 


9.0. 0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh g.6.10.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Pax 
9.3. 5.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Kankin 9.9. 2.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Zip 
9.5.17.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Pop 9.9.15.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Cumhu 


But p6 more closely resembles Ceh than it does any of these othe1 
month-signs, actually having the superfix of Ceh as its own superfix here 
(compare po with the forms for Ceh in Appendix X), and this Calendar 
Round date therefore probably stands for the full Initial Series 9.0.0.0.0 8 
Ahau 13 Ceh, 7. ¢., the end of Cycle 9. 

This is the second example of the month-sign being a human head. 
(See also the month-glyph, 8 Cumhu on Stela 25, figure 8, and p. 71.) Can it 
be possible that these heads are those of the deities who presided over these 
months? Whether so or not, this is an interesting parallel between Stele 25 
and 15 and may foreshadow the discovery of other examples of the same 
kind. 

When Stela 15 was erected, less than 90 years had elapsed since this 
important date, which must have been held in very lively memory still; at 
all events it appears to have been made a matter of record here. 

The whole inscription on Stela 15 so far as it has been deciphered reads: 


FRONT. 


Fragment 1 A1-B2_ Initial Series introducing glyph 
A3,B3 9 cycles 
A4,B4 4 katuns 

Fragment 2 As, B5 10 tuns 
A6,B6 Ouinals 


Fragment 3 B7 (o) kins 
SIDE. 
Fragment I C3 13 Kayab 
Fragment 2 Ds “End of a tun or a hotun”’ (?) 
Fragment 3 c6,D6 8 Ahau 13 Ceh (9.0.0.0.0) 
Back. 
Fragment 2 F6) “End of a lahuntun,” probably referring to the con- 


temporaneous date of the stela on the other side. 


Because of the fragmentary condition of Stela 15, it is impossible to 
more than approximate the number of glyph-blocks which its inscription 
originally contained, but the three fragments preserved have upward of 4o. 

Stela 15 dates from the fifth lahuntun of Cycle 9, being exactly 2 
katuns later than Stela 24. 

STELA 17 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Found just west of Mound 
2 on the low terrace north of the Great Plaza at the 
Main Structure. Now near Owens’s grave in the 
Great Plaza. (See plate 6.) 

Date: 9.6.0.0.0 9 Ahau 3 Uayeb (?). 


Text, (a) photograph: plate 11, a and b. 
(b) drawing: plate 11, a and b. 


go THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Only one fragment of Stela 17, the sister monument of Stela 16, has 
been found, and even this small piece has been reshaped for some secondary 
purpose. It was discovered by Morris in May 1912, at the western base of 
Mound 2, onthe lowterrace north of the Great Plaza, while he was searching for 
the missing parts of Stela16. It is 63 cm. long, 38 cm. wide, and 27 cm. thick. 

The fragment preserved is the upper right-hand corner of the monu- 
ment as one faced it (see plate 11, a). In size, style, and treatment it 
very closely resembles Stela 16. Both are executed in the same low relief, 
little more than incised lines; and both have the same type of Initial Series 
introducing glyphs at the tops of their broad faces. The variable central 
element of the Initial Series introducing glyph on the back of Stela 16 is the 
kin or sun, the corresponding element on the front of Stela 17 being the 
moon. Inshort,a very close similarity exists between the two monuments, and 
on the basis of the arrangement of its design it has been assigned to Class 2. 

The inscription on the front opens with an Initial Series introducing 
glyph in ai—p2, which was originally followed by the corresponding Initial 
Series number in a3~as, all of which is now missing except the katun-sign 
and coefficient in B3 and part of the cycle-sign in a3. 

The most important single glyph in determining the age of any Maya 
monument is the katun-sign and coefficient, since by means of this character 
alone any date can be deciphered to within 20 years of its true position at 
the outside. Most fortunately, in this text the katun coefficient is unusually 
clear as 6. (See B3, plate 11, a.) This glyph alone enables us to place the 
date of Stela 17 as falling somewhere in the katun or 20-year period from 
9.6.0.0.0 tO 9.7.0.0.0. 

Unfortunately, the inscription on the back has almost entirely dis- 
appeared, and except for the Initial Series introducing glyph in ci—p2 no 
other signs can be deciphered. 

Although it is impossible to go beyond this point with certainty because 
the rest of the inscription is missing, there are several factors which make 
it probable that Stela 17 dates from 9.6.0.0.0. 

As explained in Appendix VII, the overwhelming majority of Maya 
stele were erected, or at least formally dedicated, at the expiration of hotuns, 
lahuntuns, or katunsinthe Long Count. Because of this fact, therefore, we 
are justified in assuming that the Initial Series of Stela 17 recorded one of the 
four following dates in Katun 6 out of the 7,200 dates, which must be 
admitted as possibilities without this assumption?! 


9.6. 0.0.0 g Ahau 3 Uayeb 
9.6. 5.0.0 2 Ahau 18 Kayab 
9.6.10.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Pax 
9.6.15.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Muan 
In the very early period from which this monument dates, the custom 
of erecting a stela at the expiration of every hotun does not appear to have 


prevailed. Possibly at this early date the priests, or those in whose hands 





1Since there are 7,200 days in any given katun, there are 7,200 possible dates here. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. QI 


the matter rested, may not have felt equal to such a task. At all events, it 
is not until 9.9.5.0.0 at Copan (45 to 60 years later than Stela 17) that the 
attempt first appears to have been made to mark the end of every hotun, 
and even after this the sequence is incomplete. It is also explained in 
Appendix VII that the second and fourth hotuns were frequently com- 
memorated by the erection of stele when the first and third were not, 
because the former coincided with lahuntun and katun-endings respectively, 
and were consequently of greater importance than the latter. 

This seems to have been particularly true of Copan, since none of the 
four earliest stele here, which have been surely deciphered, Stele 24, 15, 9, 
and 7, date from a first or a third hotun. On the contrary, Stele 24, 15, and 
9 date from second hotuns (lahuntuns), and Stela 7 from a fourth hotun (a 
katun). Moreover, in the cases of the three doubtfully deciphered monu- 
ments previously encountered, Altar Q’ and Stele 20 and 25, the best 
readings for these are also lahuntuns, 9.4.10.0.0, 9.1.10.0.0, and 9.4.10.0.0 
respectively; indeed, the lahuntun-sign actually appears in the first. (See 
figure 6, a3b.) Therefore, a priori, it is probable, that Stela 17 dates from 
either 9.6.0.0.0 or 9.6.10.0.0 rather than from the first and third hotuns of 
Katun 6. 

But the second one of these two dates, 9.6.10.0.0, is surely recorded 
elsewhere here at Copan, namely, on Stela 9; and rather than accept the 
conclusion that this particular hotun was commemorated by the erection 
of two stele, when so many of the earlier hotuns are known to have had none 
at all, the writer prefers to accept the other reading, 9.6.0.0.0, as the date 
of this monument. 

Moreover, this latter date has two other minor points in its favor. It 
is not only a katun-ending, but it is also within 102 days of the best date for 
Altar X, with which Stela 17 may have been formerly associated. 

In spite of its fragmentary condition, this monument may be surely 
assigned to Katun 6; and because of the fact that the great majority of all 
Maya stele record hotun-endings, it may probably be assigned to one of the 
four hotuns given above, with the first as the best possibility. 

We are now in possession of sufficient data to resume the consideration 
of the relative ages of Altars X and Y and Stele 16 and 17, the possible 
dates for which follow: 


ALTAR X ALTAR Y STELA 16 STELA 17 
O23, 0:17:18 oii 8212: 6 9.4.9.17.0 9.6.0.0.0 
O52 boiz. 1S ep. ta rey, On7, 251200 to 
eG. 122672 16 9. .14e) 2. G 9.7.0.0.0 
It is unfortunate that the exact date of Stela 17 is unknown, since it 
may have stood in the same close relation to Altar X as Stela 16 appears 
to have stood in relation to Altar Y. Indeed, the dates of the two latter 
monuments, no matter which set of readings be selected, are within two 
years of each other. 


Q2 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


If such a relationship did exist between Stela 17 and Altar X, it is highly 
probable that the date of Altar X is the second value given above, namely, 
9.5.19.12.18, since this value would be within 6 uinals, 72. ¢., 102 days of the 
best date for Stela 17, and can not be farther off than 20 years, whereas the 
nearest that the first or third values above can be to the nearest possible 
readings of Stela 17 is 53 years before or 52 years after respectively. 

Again, on stylistic grounds, 9.5.19.12.18 1s a better date for Altar X 
than either 9.3.6.17.18 or 9.8.12.7.18. In short, all factors considered, 
9.5.19.12.18 seems to be the best date for Altar X, and 9.6.0.0.0 the best 
date for Stela 17. And finally, because these two dates are so close together, 
it is probable that Altar X was formerly associated with Stela 17. 

The real crux of this question is in regard to the dates of Stela 16 and 
Altar Y, that is, which of the two sets of values given above is to be asso- 
ciated with them, 9.4.9.17.0 and 9.4.8.12.6 or 9.7.2.12.0 and 9.7.1.7.6; and 
since either set appears to be equally possible, chronologically considered, 
it is necessary to turn to the stylistic criteria present in order to determine 
the relative sequence of these four monuments. 

Unfortunately, there is little help coming from this direction either, as 
between Altars X and Y there appears to be but little choice. The glyphs 
on Y are perhaps a shade better than those on X, but, to offset this, the 
human figures on X seem slightly more naturalistic than those on Y. Indeed, 
on stylistic grounds it is all but impossible to say which is the earlier of 
the two. 

As between Stele 16 and 17 the choice is little better, but here we have 
another avenue of approach. Since the date of Stela 17 is fixed certainly 
to Katun 6, and probably to 9.6.0.0.0, the question is to determine whether 
Stela 16 is earlier or later than this date by means of a comparison of its 
style with the styles of the next earlier and later monuments in the sequence. 
The stela next earlier than Stela 17 is Stela 15 (9.4.10.0.0), and the one next 
later, Stela 9 (9.6.10.0.0); and our next step, therefore, is to compare the 
style of Stela 16 with the styles of these two monuments. 

The Initial Series introducing glyph of Stela 16 is more like that of 
Stela 9 than that of Stela 15, and in general its closest stylistic affinities may 
be said to be later rather than earlier, 2. ¢., with Stela 9 rather than with Stela 
15, and since the date of Stela 17 can be only Io years earlier than the date of 
Stela g at the outside, and may indeed even be the same, it seems probable, 
all things considered, that the later date, 7. ¢., 9.7.2.12.0, is the better one of 
the two for Stela16. It should be remembered, however, that the earlier date 
is almost equally as good, and the sequence given below is by no means certain: 


Altar X — 9.5.19.12.18 
Stelaat 7k O.0) 0.400 
AltarsY¢ §:0:7.4ie2.0 
Stela 1G y0.7. eer eneo 


All these monuments except Altar X were found at the Main Structure, 
and all but Stela 16 were in positions clearly indicating secondary usage. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 93 


While the point escapes definite proof at this time, it seems not improbable 
that Altar X may formerly have been associated with Stela 17, and Altar 
Y with Stela 16, and finally, that the two former may possibly have ante- 
dated the two latter. 


STELA 9. 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Found in the modern 
cemetery (Group 10) about 1 kilometer southwest of 
the village (Group 9), serving as one of the two stones 
which had supported Stela 8. Destroyed in 1912. 
(See plate 3.) 


Date: 9.6.10.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Pax. 


Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 109. 
Spinden, 1913, plate 20, 5. 
(b) drawing: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol 1, plate 110. 
Morley, 1915, plate 8, B. 


References: Bowditch, 1gora, pp. 136, 137. 
Bowditch, 1910, p. tor and table 29. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 38. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol I of text, p. 68. 
Morley, 1g10a, pp. 196, 198, 199, 204. 
Morley, 1915, pp. 171-173. 
Spinden, 1913, p. 160 and table 1. 


Stela 9 was found lying prostrate in the modern cemetery about 1 kilo- 
meter southwest of the village, where, according to Gordon (1896, p. 38), it had 
been reused in the foundations of Stela 8. Although obviously not in situ 
in this position, it seems safe to assume that it had originally stood nearby. 
It was intact in 1910, when the writer first visited Copan, but when Spinden 
was there two years later he found that, together with Stela 8, it had 
been broken up to form the foundation of an adobe wall then in course of 
construction around the cemetery.1. This unpardonable act of vandalism, 
although greatly to be lamented, is not irreparable, since excellent casts 
exist of both the destroyed monuments. The writer, however, regards 
himself as particularly fortunate in having been able to study the original 
before its destruction. 

Stela 9 was 2.44 meters long, 67 cm. wide, and 39 cm. thick. Maudslay 
says that all four sides had originally been sculptured, but that the carving 
on the fourth side was almost entirely destroyed.” Spinden believes all 
four sides were sculptured, and that the effaced side, which has never been 
reproduced, possibly presented a full-length human figure front view, like 
the one on Stela 18. (See p. 97.) 

The writer, on the other hand, believes all four sides were originally 
sculptured, with glyphs like Stela 15, the style of which it very closely 
resembles, and on the basis of this arrangement of the design it may be 
assigned to Class 3. 

The inscription opens with an Initial Series on one of its broad faces. 
This is unusually clear for such an archaic text, the numerals all being in the 








1Spinden, 1913, p. 160, footnote I. 2Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 68. 


94 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


bar-and-dot notation. It unmistakably records the date 9.6.10.0.0 8 Ahau 
13 Pax, as follows: 


A1B2 Initial Series introducing glyph 


A3 9 cycles 
B3 6 katuns 
A4 Io tuns 
B4 © uinals 
AS o kins 
Bs 8 Ahau 
B8 13 Pax 


aio may be the hotun glyph; and the rest of the text shows other famil- 
iar signs, although of unknown meaning. The tops of both of the narrow 
faces are destroyed, and it is now difficult to say whether Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyphs had originally stood here or not. Judging from what is left 
of the top glyph (p2) on one side, they had not stood here.’ 

Assuming that the effaced side (the broad side opposite the Initial 
Series) opened with an Initial Series introducing glyph, the number of 
glyph-blocks originally carved on this monument was 19+ 19+22+22=82, 
each introducing glyph occupying the space of four glyph-blocks. 

Stela 9 is exactly 2 katuns later than Stela 15, which it closely resembled, 
and commemorated the seventh lahuntun of Cycleg. The relief, though very 
low, is elaborately executed, the glyphs showing a wealth of minute detail 
scarcely equaled, even in the Middle and Great Periods. This complexity 
appears especialy in the treatment of the numerical bars, all of which present 
interior decoration and have square corners, thus: In later times the 
bar is left undecorated, the corners are rounded, and the whole element is 
made narrower. 

As already pointed out, Stela 9 is very similar in style to Stela 15. 
Indeed, both appear to have been products of the same school, possibly 
indeed of the same hand, although the latter is hardly likely, since an interval 
of 40 years separated the two monuments. 

Both are of about the same width and thickness, Stela 9 being 69 cm. 
wide and 39 cm. thick, while Stela 15 is 76 cm. wide and 42 cm. thick. 
Stela 9 is about 2.5 to 3 meters long and the fragments of Stela 15 pre- 
served are 1.89 meters long. ‘To this latter measurement, however, must 
be added something to compensate for the missing bottom-piece, probably 
at least half a meter. 

In style the two are perhaps even more closely connected, glyphic 
details in particular being very similar. Thus, for example, the proportions 
of the different elements of the Initial Series introducing glyphs on the back 
and sides of Stela 15 are the same as those in the one on Stela 9, the comb- 
like lateral appendages in the former being almost identical with the same 
elements in-the latter. Even the variable elements in the Initial Series 





1In Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 110, c, enough remains of p2 to show that it had never been an Initial 
Series introducing glyph. Had it been, it is probable that it would have occupied the same space as the Initial 
Series introducing glyph on the front, namely, A1—B2. That this was not the case on this side, p2 clearly indicates. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 95 


introducing glyphs on the two fronts appear to have been the same grotesque 
head.’ Again, the element preceding the day-sign of the Initial Series 
terminal date in Bs on Stela 9, €¢{2Q2 is almost exactly the same as the 
element (2208 preceding the day-sign of a date in co, p6 on Stela 15. 

Finally, in treatment, 7. ¢., having all four sides inscribed with glyphs 
(Class 3), the two monuments are identical. All these close similarities can 
not be the result of chance and are to be explained only on the grounds that 
both monuments date from the same general period and are the work of the 
same school, and possibly, as suggested, even of the same hand. 








STELA’ 21. 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Found in the center of the 
mound at the southeastern corner of the village plaza 
(Group 9). Now in the cabildo. (See plate 3 and 
figure 22, k). 


Date: eee g Ahau 3 Uayeb to 9.7.0.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Kan- 
in. 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 9, c, d, e. 
(b) drawing: figure 14. 


While the writer was at Copan in March 1916, the villagers were demol- 
ishing the mound at the southeastern corner of the village plaza, on top of 
which Altar S was found (see p. 226), in order to secure paving-stones for the 
streets. During the course of this work a fragment of an archaic stela was 
found buried in the hearting of the mound, to which the number 21 was 
given. (See figure 22, 2.) This fragment measures 32 cm. high, 37 cm. 
wide, and 35 cm. thick. From the subject-matter presented on its three 
sculptured faces it is possible to estimate its original width as having been 
74cm. It is part of the top of an archaic stela which was originally sculp- 
tured on four sides with glyphs like Stele 20, 15, and 9g (see plate 9, c, d, e, 
and figure 14) and on the basis of the arrangement of the design, therefore, it 





Yj 


“7 

y Y 
Wij MVV3; 
YMA 


Ses 





ZT ERS J 


Fic. 14.—Inscription on front, back, and one side of Stela 21. 


may be assigned to Class 3. At some later time it had been broken up into 
pieces, and the only fragment recovered shows that it had been used again as 
a building-block; in the reshaping necessary for this purpose, the glyph or 
glyphs on one side and part of those on the front and back were broken off.’ 

Three Initial Series introducing glyphs, two of which are not even 
complete, are all that is now preserved of the inscription. (See figure 14.) 











1This element on Stela 15 is partially effaced. 

2Since there is an Initial Series introducing glyph on the preserved narrow face as well as upon the front and 
back, it is practically certain that there must have been one on the destroyed narrow face also, as in the case of 
Stele 15 and 9. 


96 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


In the reshaping process about half of the Initial Series introducing glyphs 
on both the front and the back were destroyed. That on the preserved side 
is practically complete. 

The variable element in the Initial Series introducing glyph on one of 
the broad faces is unmistakably the head of God C of the Schellhas classifica- 
tion of Maya deities. In the Initial Series introducing glyph on the narrow 
face this element appears to be rather more of a filling character, like the 
ones on the three non-Initial Series sides of Stela 15. 

As the period glyphs are all missing, it is impossible to date this stela 
exactly, although approximate dating by comparison of the stylistic criteria 
with those of other archaic stele is practicable. 

In arrangement Stela 21 most closely resembles Stele 20, 15, and 9, - 
having glyphs on all four of its sides. Stylistically its closest resemblances 
are with Stele 9, 16,17, and 24. All seven of these monuments are of about 
the same size: , 





Stela2r.| Stela2o. | Stelars.| Stela g. | Stela16. | Stela17. | Stela24. 





. cm cm cm cm. cm cm. cm. 
Width. ....as) 74 53 76 69 65 53 73 
Thickness. .. . 35 40 42 39 42 a7 29 








The relief on Stela 21 is low and flat (about 6 mm. high), although well 
executed. Traces of red paint still adhere in a few places. Since two of its 
three closest affinities on stylistic grounds are definitely referable to the 
katun from 9.6.0.0.0 to 9.7.0.0.0, it seems probable that it also may date 
from about the same period. 

This clearly established case of secondary usage in ancient times sug- 
gests that other archaic stele may have suffered a similar fate, which would 
satisfactorily explain some of the existing lacune in the sequence of the 
dated monuments. (See pp. 123, 125 for a further discussion of this point. 


STELA 18. 


Provenance: Found on the mound of Stela 7 (Group 9). Now part 
of a wall behind the house of Domingo Hernandez in 
the southwestern quarter of the village. (See plate 
3 and figure 22, a’.) 

Date: 9.7.0.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Kankin (?). 

Text, (a) photograph: plate 9, a. 

(b) drawing: figure IS. 
Reference: Spinden, 1913, p. 159, footnote 1, and table 1.2 


Stela 18 was found by Spinden in 1912, with Stela 20 and Altar Q’, in 
a wall behind the house of Domingo Hernandez, in the southwestern quarter 
of the village. (See plate 3 and figure 22, a’.) At that time he incorrectly 





1Schellhas, 1904, p. 19. 
*Spinden refers to Stela 18 as Stela 16 in this work. In the nomenclature followed here, and since adopted by 
Spinden, this monument is renamed Stela 18. 


PLATE 10 


4 


eS ee 


ee 


Sted ety) eke oR, tlh tele 


4 
| 
z 
& 
: 
. 
; 
' 








Stela 16, (a)Front, (b) back. Drawn from the original. 








INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 97 


grouped the four fragments together, calling all parts of the same monu- 
ment Stela 16. (See p. 60.) As previously stated, a study of these four 
fragments revealed the fact that instead of being parts of one and the same 
monument, they are divided among three monuments—two stele (18 and 
20) and one altar (Q’). 

The single fragment of Stela 18 preserved is 69 cm. long, 67 cm. wide, 
and 43 cm. thick. The front was sculptured with a human figure—the 
earliest example of the front presentation of the human form yet found at 
Copan,' and the back and sides with glyphs. On the basis of this new 
arrangement of the design, therefore, Stela 18 has been assigned to a new 
class, 4. 

This fragment came from near the top of the monument, although, as 
will appear presently, the top itself, a piece about half a meter long, is still 
missing, the upper edge of the piece recovered being about half a meter 
below the former top of the stela. 

Spinden, to whom the discovery of this important monument is due, 
has prepared the following well-considered description of it for use here: 


“*Stela 18 is the designation given to a fragment that now lies under the eaves 
of an inside porch or workshop of a house in Copan village. The house belongs to 
Antonio Guerra? and is situated on the south side of the street that runs west from 
the southwest corner of the plaza. 

“The realistic design shows a grotesque head-dress similar to those worn by 
human figures on other Copan monuments. ‘The sculpture is in very low, flat 
relief and is so badly battered that all the details can not be made out. The gro- 
tesque face is evidently intended for a jaguar and is decorated with small circles. 
The round eyes have the lids half closed and under these lids is a design very like 
the Venus symbol. The top of the open mouth is at the bottom of the sculptured 
block and one may see the two large canine teeth between which are four incisor 
teeth. What may be part of the curve of the usual spiral fang appears at each side 
of themouth. Thenose is rather unusual in shape, but at the top of it is the charac- 
teristic divided'scroll. The design above this jaguar head may, perhaps, be regarded 
as its head-dress. In the center is a heart-shaped object, from the sides of which 
issue more or less flame-shaped scrolls. The design as a whole shows general simi- 
larity in assemblage of details to the head-dresses on Stelz E, 7, P, and 2, although 
simpler than any of them. For purposes of comparison the head-dress on Stela 2 
may best be used, since it also consists of a jaguar face with a heart-shaped object 
above. To be sure, this heart-shaped object is modified by a grotesque face at the 
bottom and an open hand at the top, but the fundamental likeness is there. The 
lateral ornaments of Stela 2 also recall those on Stela 18. Other details on Stela 2 
are in addition on the new monument. 

“Tt is certain that we have in this fragment the earliest example with a human 
figure so far described at Copan. It is a delicate question whether it 1s earlier or 
later than Stela 15, which has hieroglyphs on all four sides. The earliest dated 








1The small figures presented on the long sides of Altars X and Y are possibly earlier, but they are much smaller 
and in profile and also the archaic statues found under them in the foundations of Stele 5 and 4, figure 67, a 
and J, respectively. 

2When Spinden first visited Copan (1912) this house was in the possession of Antonio Guerra. It subsequently 
passed into the hands of Domingo Hernandez, as already noted, p. 60, 


98 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


monument previously known with a human figure is Stela 7 (9.9.0.0.0). The 
evidence of a human figure on Stela 18 makes it practically certain that a human 
figure once existed on the unmolded side of Stela 9,’ and it may be regarded as 
established that full-length human sculptures in stone were known at Copan in 
Katun 4, and that they were probably very similar, in details represented, to those 
carved a hundred years later.”’ 


Most unfortunately the text on the single fragment recovered is in poor 
condition. As one faces the monument, the left side has an Initial Series 


introducing glyph, although only its bottom part is preserved.| Ic _JIYILS! | 
Owing to the diagonal direction of the line of fracture, the corresponding 


glyphs on the back and right side are on the 
LY 


top fragment, now missing. That Initial Series 
introducing glyphs were formerly present, 
however; seems certain. Indeed, on the back 
the Initial Series number itself is partiall Oy, WUw(WW) 
WU C2 
LAY Vf 
Yii7 LY) 


preserved. (See plate 9, a, and figure 15.) 
Fic. 15.—Inscription on back of Stela 18. 


























There seems to have been recorded, there- 
fore, on the back of Stela 18, an Initial Series, 
the introducing glyph of which is now missing. 
Two heads appear indistinctly in a3, figure 15, 
the first a human type, the second grotesque. 
These doubtless record 9 cycles. The entire destruction of the katun 
sign and coefficient in B3 is a very serious loss indeed, since it considerably 
increases the range of the possible readings. 





The coefficient of the tun sign in Ada 1s the clearest glyph in 
the entire inscription; and although its form is irregular, it can 
hardly be other than 0, 5, 10, or 15, on the )) grounds of antece- 


dent probability, 7. ¢., corresponding to some hotun-ending. However, this 
identification appears to rest on a somewhat firmer foundation than that of 
antecedent probability alone, as the following will tend to show, although in 
order to make the point clear a somewhat lengthy digression is necessary. 

In figure 16 is shown part of the inscription from the Temple of the 
Cross at Palenque.? At p3—cs is recorded “4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, End of 
Cycle 13,”’ and immediately following this in ps—cé is a Secondary Series of 
1.9.2. Following after several intermediate and probably non-calendric 
glyphs (not shown in figure 16) the date 13 Ik ? Mol is recorded at cg, pa, 
the month coefficient psa being something like the tun coefficient on 
Stela 18. Compare ada, figure 15, with poa, figure 16. 

Performing the calculations indicated here, it will be found that if 1.9.2 
is counted forward from 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, the date reached will be 13 Ik 
o Chen, the day of which is recorded in c9. Passing over the month in pg 
for the moment, let us continue the inspection of the text. 





1The writer’s dissent with this view has already been noted. See p. 93. 

For the sake of brevity certain intermediate glyphs—probably of a non-calendric nature—have been omitted. 
The glyph designations in figure 16, however, correspond with those in the complete text, for a reproduction of 
which see Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. rv, plates 73-77. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 99 


Following after seven intermediate glyphs, there is recorded in p13-c15 
a distance number of 1.18.3.12.0, and after five more glyphs the date 9 Ik 
15 Ceh at £1, Fi. 

If 1.18.3.12.0 be counted forward from 13 Ik o Chen, the terminal date 
reached in the first calculation, the date reached will be 9 Ik 15 Ceh, which 
is recorded in £1, F1._ It therefore seems certain 
that with the possible exception of the month- 
sign of the second date, 7. ¢., ? Mol in pg, this 
text is correct, the calculations agreeing with the 
glyphs recorded. 

Let us next examine ps9. Since the day-sign 
in c9 is very clearly Ik, the month coefficient in 
p9a must be either 0, 5, 10, or 15, which reduces 
the possible meaning of 9a to one of these four 
numerals. Now, although the month-sign re- 
corded is Mol, and the month-sign as indicated 
by the calculations should be Chen, the month 
coefficient itself can only be o. For if 1.9.2 is 
counted forward from 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu or 
1.18.3.12.0 is counted backward from g Ik 15 
Ceh, the date reached in either case will be 9 Ik 
o Chen. It therefore seems certain that poa is 
to be identified as 0, the month to which it is 
attached being incorrectly given as Mol instead 
of Chen. Mol was the month immediately pre- 
ceding Chen, and this may have given rise to the 
error in the month-sign here. 

But the resemblance between p9a and the 
tun coefficient of Stela 18 in Ada, figure 15, has 
already been pointed out, and on the basis of this 
close similarity we are probably justified in iden- 
tifying Ada as a sign for o. 

This identification, moreover, does not rest 
on this one apparently corroboratory passage 
alone. In figure 17, a, is shown a Calendar Round 
date from one of the piers in the western court 
of the PalaceGroupat Palenque.’ Thisis clearly 
13 Manik ? Yaxkin, the place of the month co- 
efficient being occupied by the same SIT ae ee evant Bi een pole 
those in a4a, figure 15, and pa in figure 16. tablet in the Temple of the Cross 
Now, Manik can have only four possible month ™ aoa 
coefficients, 0, 5,10, and 15. ‘Therefore, because of this fact, and because of 
the resemblance just noted, it seems reasonably safe to conclude that the 





1See Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1v, plate 29, No. 7, G1, and vol. Iv of text, page 16. 


100 ' THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


month coefficient in figure 17, a, is o, even though calculations to prove it 
are wanting. The most that can be offered in corroboration of this second 
case is that one of the places where 13 Manik o Yaxkin occurred in the 
Long Count was 9.12.11.2.7, and there is another date at Palenque, an Ini- 
tial Series, which records 9.12.6.5.8! 3 Lamat 6 Zac, which is within 5 years 
OG. 2a ae 

A third occurrence of this unusual form for o is shown in figure 17, d,a 
Calendar Round date from Lintel 9 at Yaxchilan.2 This is the date 1 Eb 
? Yaxkin. Now, Eb can only have o, 5, 10, or 15 for its month coefficients, 
and therefore one of these values must be substituted for the month coeff- 
cient in figure 17, 0. But this 
sign is like the other three month 
coefficients just described, and 
we are therefore probably jus- 
tified in identifying it also as o. 
Unfortunately there is again no 
calculation by means of which 
this reading can be verified. 

A fourth possible occurrence 
of this form for o 1s shown in 
figure 17, c, which is the Initial 
Series terminal date on the Ley- 
den Plate.’ This Initial Series Fic. 17.—Parts of inscriptions on: a, pier in western court 
records the date $,14.3.1,12 1 Eb of the Palace Group at Palenque; 2, Lintel 9 at Yax- 

= < ; ; chilan; c, Leyden Plate. 
o Yaxkin, all of which 1s perfectly 
clear except the month coefficient. While the bar attached to the month- 
sign may be the month coefficient 5 (one of the four values possible here, 
1. €.,0., 5, 10, or 15), the writer prefers to regard the unusual element 
as the month coefficient, as the calculations show that 0 and not 5 is GF) 
required here. If this character is turned on either end, it looks not unlike 











‘Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. iv, plate 78. This latter date is recorded on a fragment of a sculptured slab, 
possibly a stela, which was found on the slope of the pyramid of the Temple of the Foliated Cross at Palenque. 

Although the Initial Series introducing glyph, the cycle-sign and coefficient, and katun-sign and coefficient are 
missing, the writer was able to decipher this Initial Series as 9.12.6.5.8 3 Lamat 6 Zac, which agrees with the day of 
the terminal date as recorded. There is a Secondary Series of 1.10.1, which is counted backward from the Initial 
Series terminal date to reach the date 1 Manik 10 Pop also recorded. 

The whole inscription seems to have read: 


9.12.6. 5.8 3 Lamat 6 Zac 
T10,1 Backward 
9.12.4.13.7 1 Manik 10 Pop 
This is recorded as follows: 
Fragment I missing AI-B2 Initial Series intro- Fragment 2. A5 8 kins 
i) ducing glyph 2a BS 3 Lamat (6 Zac) 
I missing A3 9 cycles 2) AG 1 kin, 10 uinals 
I missing B3 12 katuns 20 BS I tun 
“2 A4 6 tuns 2 alo 1 Manik 
2 B4 5 uinals 2 BIO 10 Pop 


The only irregular feature of this text is the omission of the month of the Initial Series terminal date, i. ¢., 
6 Zac. 

2 Maler, 1903, plate 53. 

3See figure 65 and Holden, 1881, figure 52, and Morley, 1915, figure 75, A. 





MORLEY. 








Stela 17. (a)Front, (b) back. 









EV IE 





CBS scx 


owe we ae 


Drawn from the original. 


PLATE 11 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. IOI 


the form for o here under consideration, and, as pointed out, is the value 
demanded by the Initial Series number actually recorded.! 

Even disregarding this last doubtful example, the writer believes suffi- 
cient evidence has been presented to show that the tun coefficient in a4a, 
figure 15,is probably 0; and further, that it is probably the normal form of the 
tun sign, though why this should have been chosen to stand for o in these 
particular cases is unknown. 

Returning once more to the consideration of our text (Stela 18), the 
next glyph after the tun sign and coefficient, 7. ¢., B4 (see plate 9, a, and figure 
15), is badly effaced. Enough remains of the coefficient, however (B4a), to 
show that it had almost certainly been o, the outline ~ being that of the 
usual sign for o The kin coefficient in as is entirely { effaced. 

The day||| of the Initial Series terminal date? is probably re- 
corded at sBa. At first sight the coefficient appears to be 6, but a very 
careful examination of the original revealed the fact that formerly there 
appears to have been two other dots, one on each side of the central one, 
and that this coefficient may therefore have been 7 or even 8, all three 
possibilities having to be reckoned with. 

Antecedent probability, we have seen, probably justifies the postulate 
that a katun, lahuntun, or at least a hotun-ending was recorded by this 
Initial Series. That this was a general practice, moreover, is explained in 
Appendix VII and has been exemplified already in the cases of Stele 24, 15, 
and 9, and probably also in the cases of Stele 20, 25, and 17, and we are 
therefore justified in accepting it as our first postulate. Again, as shown 
above, there are excellent reasons for believing that a4a, the tun coefficient, 
is 0, which would make the period-ending here recorded a katun-ending, 
which we will make our second postulate, thereby restricting the possible 
dates under our first postulate to katun-endings only. That the coefficient 
of the day-sign in Bsa is surely 6, 7, or 8, will be our third postulate; and 
finally, on stylistic grounds, Spinden has shown that Stela 18 must be earlier 
than Stela 7 (9.9.0.0.0), which will be our fourth and last postulate. 

An examination of Goodman’s tables discloses that there are only 
three places in the Early Period where the conditions imposed by these four 
postulates are fulfilled, namely: 


g.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh 
g.1.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Yaxkin 
9.7.0.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Kankin 
Unfortunately there is nothing further in the text as it has come down 
to us—the most hopelessly effaced of all the Copan stele—to aid further 
in its decipherment, and we are forced to fall back upon the stylistic criteria 
and historical probability to decipher its date even approximately. 





1]t is interesting to note in these three examples that the month having this unusual sign for o is Yaxkin. 
Since there are some grounds for believing that the Maya year may have begun with this month at one time, the 
three days recorded in figure 17 would then have been Maya New Year Days. 


102 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Historically considered, the first two values can probably be eliminated 
at the outset. The earliest surely deciphered date at Copan is 50 years after 
the first and 30 years after the second. And even if the reading suggested 
for Stela 20, 9.1.10.0.0, be accepted as correct, both of these readings still 
antedate it. 

Stylistically considered, the last reading is very much preferable to the 
other two. If 9.7.0.0.0 is the correct reading for this Initial Series, it makes 
much less of a gap between Stela 18 and the next stela in Class 4, 7. ¢., Stela 7, 
than if either of the other two are correct, 7. ¢., 40 years as compared with 
180 and 160 years respectively. 

This mayseem a minor point, but where the development of art unfolded 
as rapidly as it did at Copan, 180 or even 160 years is too much time to have 
separated Stele 18 and 7. Furthermore, once having developed this new 
type of stela (Class 4) with a human figure on its front, it seems more than 
likely that the ancient sculptors would not have allowed 160 or 180 years to 
go by before attempting it again; indeed, even 40 years would appear to 
have been a long period to have waited. 

Finally, chronologically considered, Stela 18 fits in much better with the 
other stele of the Early Period at 9.7.0.0.0 than at 9.0.0.0.0 or 9.1.0.0.0, 
and in conclusion, in want of further evidence, the writer has accepted 
9.7.0.0.0 as the date most likely to be recorded here. 

Since Stela 18 is probably the earliest stela upon which the human form 
was represented at Copan, it is unfortunate that it is in such a fragmentary 
condition as to prevent certain dating; but even so, the reading suggested 
may probably be accepted as approximately correct, and possibly, actually so. 


STELA®7, 


Provenance: Found fallen above its own foundations at Group 9. 
Now in the cabildo. (See plate 3 and figures 18, 3, 
1g, and 22, 0.) 
Date: 9.9.0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Zotz. 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 13. 
pinden, 1913, plate 18, 1 (front only). 
(b) drawing: plate 13. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 108. 
References: Gordon, 1896, p. 38. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 16, 67. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 159, 160, 164, and table 1. 

Stela 7, broken and badly mutilated, now lies in the cabildo, having 
been removed thither from the yard of the house of Clementino Lopez at 
the southwest corner of the village plaza in 1917. (See figure 22, 0.) Mauds- 
lay describes it as “‘a broken and defaced monolith lying in the scrub about 
50 yards to the west of the village’’;! and Gordon says he found it lying 
“‘in the bush to the west of the modern village, . . . fallen and broken’’.2 
Maudslay says again that it was in “Copan Village, west of Altar U.’* (See 
also plate 3.) 


1Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 16. *See Gordon, 1896, p. 38. 
3See Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 67. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 103 


Maria Melendrez gives the following account of the breaking of this 
monument. In the spring of 1874 a Colonel Vicente Solis came to the 
village from Santa Rosa, the capital of the Department of Copan, with 
troops, pursuing some political malefactors who were fleeing toward the 
Guatemalan frontier. While at the village he tried to move Stela 7 from 
where it lay in the bush to the plaza for re-erection, but his men succeeded 
only in dragging it a few meters before it broke in two and it was left in 
the bush where it was. Clementino Lopez later acquired this property, and 
it was under the back portal of his house that the writer first saw this stela 
in IQIO. 

The original provenance of Stela 7, however, has been established by the 
discovery of the foundation-stone (and the chamber underneath) upon 
which this monument rested. This important discovery has already received 
some attention in connection with the de- 
scription of Stela 24 (pp. 78-80), and its con- 
sideration will be resumed here. 

The mound of Stela 7 is about 50 meters 
southwest of the southwestern corner of the 
village plaza (see figure 22, F). By far 
the greater part of it lies in the property of 
Clementino Lopez (see figure 22), but the 
northwest corner is on the lot of Domingo 
Hernandez and the northeast corner on the 
lot of Florencio Lemos. It is 27 meters long 
north and south, 17 meters wide east and west, 
and 70 cm. high. The southwest corner of the 
foundation-stone of Stela 7 (figure 18, a) is 13.5 
meters from the southern side of the mound 


POQOOQDOOK HOOK has 


20 eeeees comes cs ces eee comer es comes cemeeess coors conan, 


Pemmeweed tn manne nee crews mnnw wan none sa eres eneccessecce 





LEGEND. 

Limits of upper pavement. 
Probable limits of lower pavement. 
Higher platform, 


012345 XXx 
a oe a) 


meters samen 


Fic. 18.—Plan of mound of Stela 7 show- 


and 4.33 meters from the eastern side. Stela 
7 itself (figure 18, b), from the best informa- 
tion available, was found lying on the ground 
2 meters west of its foundation-stone, appar- 
ently just where it had fallen. 


ing location of Stela 7: a, foundation- 
stone of Stela 7; b, Stela 7; c, stone 
platform at northwest corner; d, lower 
pavement not found this far south; e, 
cache of worked jades found at this 
point; f, Fragment V’14 found in cru- 
ciform chamber underneath founda- 
tion-stone of Stela 7. 


The accidental discovery of this foundation-stone, together with a frag- 
ment of Stela 24 and a small round altar, in 1916, was by no means the first 
of its kind, but the culmination of a long series of similar discoveries, such as 
archaic stele and altars traceable to this mound, numerous smaller archaic 
fragments found in the walls of houses and pavements in the immediate 
vicinity, etc., all of which made it practically certain that formerly there 
had been here an important early center of occupation, possibly even the 
very earliest settlement in the valley. Indeed, this mound had become so 
important because of these several discoveries that its examination became 
imperative, and in 1919 the writer excavated the northern half. (See 
figure 18.) 


104 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


In figure 19 is shown a cross-section of this mound as well as of Stela 7, 
its foundation-stone, and the chamber beneath. Referring to this diagram, 
it will be seen that the surface soil (figure 19, a) is a black humus 12.5 cm. 
deep, below which is a stratum of small fragments of volcanic tuff mixed with — 
occasional larger pieces, light green in color and 12.5 cm. deep (figure 19, D). 








Boltom of glyph panel 


Centimeters 


Scale | ! 
° 10) 6208 0—s HO | a4 Poe 


Level of ground 


G roove 








eae 
Boece 





99 
Oo, 
seq b 


lepers 
Pe yho5 
ROVE SS 
ia: 






IPT 




















SPE LA 


fogs eon ale =: e 

geo | 
q Oe 

BS Oa Saad aes 

P} SSA B 8S O00 GS 


a 

6 

“an 

oH 
O-9 8 
Ola 


() 
Gp 
i 
59 
wale 


FOUNDATION STONE 





~- 


CrucirormM 
CHAMBER 





WALL WALL 





Fic. 19.— North and south cross-section through Stela 7 showing foundation-stone, cruciform chamber, and 
composition of mound upon which Stela 7 was erected: a, humus, 12.5 cm.; }, small fragments of volcanic 
tuff with occasional larger pieces, light-green in color, 12.5 cm.; c, pavement of hard lime-plaster, 5 cm.; 
d, same as stratum }, 10 cm.; e, coarse gravel, pink in color, 10 cm.; f, second pavement of hard lime-plaster, 
2.5 cm.; g, same as strata b and d, 10 cm.; h, undisturbed earth, thick, pasty, black-brown clay, generally 
free from rocks, 18 cm. verging into 1, thickly interspersed with pieces of volcanic tuff, light-green, red, brown, 
and yellow in color to bottom of excavations. 


This latter stratum rests on a pavement of hard white lime-plaster 5 cm. 
thick (figure 19, c), which extends throughout the entire mound and which 
is exceedingly durable and resistant. This is shown by the line xxxx in 
figure 18. Below this is a stratum of small broken pieces of the same 
material as stratum J, 1. ¢., volcanic tuff of a light green color (figure 19, d), 
also 10 cm. thick; and below this is a stratum of coarse pinkish gravel 
(figure 19, ¢) 10 cm. thick. 

Next comes a second pavement of white lime-plaster (figure 19, f) 2.5 
cm. deep. This again is very hard, but extends over less ground than the 
upper pavement. [xcavations at d, figure 18, 8 meters north of the south- 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 105 


ern end of the mound, failed to disclose this lower pavement. (See the 
heavy dotted line in figure 18.) Below this is a third layer of small 
broken pieces of volcanic tuff (figure 19, g) like b and d, which is 10 cm. 
deep and rests directly on the undisturbed earth of the valley bottom. 
The upper 18 cm. of this (figure 19, /) is a thick, pasty, black-brown clay 
generally free from stones, and below this, as deep as the excavations were 
carried, another meter, the same clay continued, but thickly interspersed 
with rocks of volcanic origin, light green, red, brown, and yellow in color 
(figure 19, 7). 

At the northwest corner of the mound was a stone platform (figure 18, c) 
7 meters long east and west and 6 meters wide north and south, resting on the 
level of the lower pavement but not rising above the general level of the 
mound. At ¢, figure 18, 1.5 meters south of this platform, was found a cache 
of three pieces of worked jade about 7 or 8 cm. below the level of the surface. 

One of these is very beautifully carved and represents a human figure 
in profile 7.5 cm. high, with a hole running through from side to side, so that 
it could be worn as a pendant. The other two pieces were halves of the same 
pebble, which first had had a small cylinder reamed out of it, probably to 
be worked into an ear ornament, and the pebble itself was then sawn in half. 

Referring to figure 19, the relation of Stela 7 to this mound is shown 
graphically. ‘The stela rests directly on the foundation-stone already men- 
tioned, which in turn is the top or cap of a small chamber built beneath it. 
This chamber is cruciform in plan, each passage being 76 cm. long, 46 cm. 
wide, and 77 cm. high. The sides and floor are built of squared blocks of 
stone and the latter rests directly on the undisturbed soil of the valley floor. 

Clementino Lopez broke into this chamber from the north side in 1916 
and removed the following objects: 

. A sea-shell (Arca grandis Broderip). 

. A stone weight with a hole through it. 

. An obsidian spearhead about 18 cm. long. 

. Another of the same material, only slightly longer. 
. An obsidian knife about 15 cm. long. 

To these should be added a sixth object (Fragment V’ 14, see figure 20, h) 
found by the writer in 1919 at f, figure 18, in the southeastern corner of the 
east-and-west passage of this chamber. (See also figure 19.) This is a 
small, irregular-shaped fragment of an archaic stela not more than 8 cm. in 
any dimension. One surface shows part of a glyph painted a bright ver- 
million. All of these objects, except No. 4, which was lost, are now in the 
Peabody Museum at Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

This deposit or cache under Stela 7 is the earliest example of its kind 
yet discovered at Copan. Such chambers occur in the Middle Period under 
Stele 1 and I (pp. 161, 162, and 177, 178 respectively), and the practice 
was continued down to the very end of the Great Period, chambers being 
found under the foundations of Stele M, C, and 4 (pp. 278, 346, and 356 
respectively). 


map wW DN 


106 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


It has been noted that the mound of Stela 7 was the richest repository 
of archaic monuments in the entire valley. For example, of the 22 monu- 
ments now referable to the Early Period at Copan, 8 were either found on 
this mound or were traceable to it, as already described: 


Stela 20 Stela 18 
Stela 24 Stela 7 
Stela 25 Altar Pf 
Stela 15 Altar Q’ 


And of the 14 Fragments V’ now in the cabildo,! 12 were found in the excava- 
tion of this mound or built into the walls of houses or pavements in the 
immediate vicinity, as follows: 


Fragment V’ 1, north wall of the house of Domingo Hernandez. 
Fragment V’ 3, foundations of Stela 7 with fragment of Stela 24. 
Fragment V’ 4, excavations of the mound of Stela 7, 1919. 
Fragment V’ 6, excavations of the mound of Stela 7, 1918. 
Fragment V’ 7, excavations of the mound of Stela 7, 1919. 
Fragment V’ 8, excavations of the mound of Stela 7, 1919. 
Fragment V’ 9, west wall of the house of Pedro Ramirez. 
Fragment V’1o, pavement in front of house of Clementino Lopez. 
Fragment V’I1, excavations of the mound of Stela 7, 1919. 
Fragment V’1I2, excavations of the mound of Stela 7, 1919. 
Fragment V’13, south wall of the house of Clementino Lopez. 
Fragment V'14, chamber under foundation-stone of Stela 7. 


Taking into consideration the fact that Stele 20, 24, 25, and 15 are the 
four earliest stele yet recovered at Copan and, further, the greater abundance 
of archaic monuments here than at any other single place in the valley, and 
finally, that at least four and possibly five other archaic monuments, Altars 
L’ and M’ and Stele 21, 22, and 9, were found in the immediate vicinity, all 
probably are to be interpreted as indicating that Group 9, where the mound 
of Stela 7 is located, was the earliest center of intensive occupation in the 
valley. 

Returning now to the consideration of Stela 7, this monument was 
found to be 4.4 meters long, 79 cm. wide, and 65 cm. thick. The front is 
sculptured with a human figure of heroic proportions, front presentation, 
the back and sides being devoted to the inscription. This is the same 
arrangement of the design as on Stela 18, and Stela 7 may therefore be 
assigned to the same class, 7. ¢., 4. 

The text (see plate 13) opens with a large Initial Series introducing glyph 
in al-B3 and an Initial Series in a4—Béa, Bsa. This is expressed in head- 
variant numerals, all of which are very clear and record the date 9.9.0.0.0 
3 Ahau? 3 Zotz as follows. 

1All except Fragment V’ 14, which is in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge, Massachusetts, Catalogue 
number, C, 8543. 
2It is interesting to note that the variant of Ahau recorded here, the human head in profile, is not surrounded 


by the customary day-sign cartouche, although the tripod support is present. (See plate 13, B6a.) This is very 
unusual. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 107 


A1-B3__ Initial Series introducing glyph 


A4 9 cycles 
B4 9 katuns 
AS o tuns 
BS © uinals 
A6 o kins 
B6a 3 Ahau 
B8a 3 Zotz 


Although there are several other signs of familiar form, their meanings 
are unknown. ‘The texts on the two narrow sides also open with Initial 
Series introducing glyphs, although no Initial Series follows in either case. 
It should be noted that the variable central element is the same in all three 
of these signs, namely, a grotesque head, as is also true of the corresponding 
element on Stela 15. There are 23-+23-+23=69 glyph-blocks in this text, 
the Initial Series introducing glyphs on the sides occupying the space of 
4 glyph-blocks each, and the one on the back the space of 6 glyph-blocks. 

Stela 7 is just 2 katuns and 10 tuns (approximately 50 years) later than 
Stela 9, and, as would naturally be expected, shows a considerable advance 
in style over the latter. Until the discovery of Stela 18 by Spinden in 1912, 
this monument was thought to be the earliest example of the front presen- 
tation of the human figure extant at Copan. 


STELA E. 


Provenance: Original position uncertain, possibly at Group 9. Found 
lying on the terrace on the west side of the Great Plaza 
just east of Mound 1 at the Main Structure. The 
associated altar (now badly shattered) is at the base 
of this terrace, in front of the stela. (See plate 6.) 


Date: (Stela) 9.9.2.17.0 10 Ahau_ 8 Uo (?) 
(Altar) 9.9.5. 0.0 g Ahau 18 Uo. 

Text, (a) photograph: Spinden, 1913, plate 18, 2 (front only). 

(b) drawing: plate 14. 

Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol 1, plate 49. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, p. 773, figure 223. 

References: Goodman, 1897, p. 131. 
Gordon, 1896, pp. 24, 35. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 48. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. I, pp. 773, 774. 


Spinden, 1913, pp. 158, 159, 161. 
Thomas, 1900, p. 778. 

Stela E lies on the terrace at the western side of the Great Plaza in front 
of Mound 1 at the Main Structure. If it is 7m sitw here, it is necessary to 
assume that the terraces surrounding the Great Plaza were built before the 
erection of the Great Plaza itself, that is to say, some time during the Early 
Period. As this question will be fully presented in the discussion of Stela I 
and its altar (pp. 177-183), it will not be anticipated here other than to 
state the writer believes that Stela E and its altar were brought to the posi- 
tions where they are now found, possibly from Group 9, at some time after 
9.12.5.0.0, 7. ¢., during the Middle Period. 

The reasons for assigning Stela E to Group 9 originally are two, first 
because it is obviously not im situ in its present position at the Main Struc- 


108 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


ture, and second because the hotun in the Long Count next earlier than that 
probably commemorated by Stela E was marked by a monument which 
was found at Group 9, namely, Stela 7. 

The altar, of which only a fragment now remains (see plate 14,d), stands 
at the base of the western terrace. Formerly it doubtless stood above on 
top of the terrace directly in front of the stela. 

Stela E is 3.53 meters long, 65 cm. wide, and, 54 cm. thick. The front 
is sculptured with a human figure, and the back and sides with glyphs; on 
the basis of which arrangement it may be assigned to Class 4. 

The inscription is unusual in many ways, and, so far as the writer knows, 
its date has never been previously deciphered. The readings suggested, 
although not certain, have much in their favor, and, so far as the final or 
contemporaneous date is concerned (9.9.5.0.0), may probably be accepted as 
correct. 

The text opens with an Initial Series introducing glyph in ai—B2 (see 
plate 14,a); and this appears to be followed by an Initial Series number in 
a3-B7.! The signs for the cycle, katun, and tun appear very clearly in 83, 
B4, and Bs, respectively; but the uinal-sign in B6 is entirely effaced and the 
kin-sign in B7 almost so. The coefficients in a3-a7 are even less satisfac- 
tory. The cycle coefficient in a3 is effaced, and, although perfectly clear, 
the katun coefficient in a4 is unfamiliar. Indeed, the cycle coefficient, 
judging from what is left of it, is neither a bar-and-dot nor a head-variant 
numeral. Antecedent probability suggests that it stands for 9. The katun 
coefficient in a4 bears little resemblance to any of the known head-variant 
numerals, and, so far as its appearance goes, might be assigned almost any 
value. The tun, uinal, and kin coefficients are illegible. 

Difficulties do not cease here, moreover. ‘The day of the Initial Series 
terminal date should be recorded at as; but although this glyph is perfectly 
preserved, it is obviously not a day-sign. In fact, the only possible day-sign 
on this side of the monument is B9, where Goodman sees the day 2 Ix, and 
following this in aio the month 7 Yax.? He makes no attempt, however, to 
fix the position of this date in the Long Count, and its accuracy may well be 
doubted for the following reasons: In the first place, aio is not the sign for 
7 Yax. The head there presented bears only a very general resemblance to 
the head for 7, and the Cauac sign to its left lacks the Yax element, 
the distinguishing characteristic of the sign for this month. And 
in the second place, the reading suggested below is much more appropriate 
for the date of this stela. There are no day or month-signs or other known 
glyphs in the remainder of the inscription on the front.’ 

The text on the north side (plate 14,b) opens with four glyphs which 
have an important bearing on this inscription, inasmuch as the third and 

1Nothing below the tun-sign and coefficient, A5—-BS5, is shown in plate 14, a. 
2Goodman, 1897, p. 131. 


3According to Gordon (1896, p. 35) the human figure side of Stela FE faced east. If this is true the Initial 
Series was recorded on the west side, and the Initial Series terminal date c2, c3 on the north side. 


MORLEY. 






-EGKERT LITHO, CO., WASH,,5.0. 





. ~~, 
AA o. 


¥ 


. Ky 


Stela 15. Inscription on the front. Drawn from the original. 





PLATE 


Oe ie 


iO Oa ee SS 


ee 


= 
m 


4 Se 


a) 








is 
4 
: 


A 





. 
2 
< 
% 
> é 
< 
4 
‘ 
\ 


a” 





~ 4 
. 
” 3 
on 
» 
yt 
& id 
* a 
oe 
ra 
» 
- 
A 
‘ 
‘ 
Fé 
¢ 
i 
a = 
Py I 
t 
- 
r 
. 
ioe ‘ 
i os 
= 2 7 
‘ 
f 
“ f2. « 
- - 
i 
‘ 
ng 
= 


é 


i? bi Le CZ 
Ve dh? bie 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 109 


fourth almost certainly declare the Initial Series terminal date. The first 
glyph on this side (ci u.h.) is very clearly Glyph C of the Supplementary 
Series! The second glyph (c1 1. h.) is one of the forms of the variable 
Glyph X, which almost always stands between Glyphs C and B of the Sup- 
plementary Series. The third glyph (c2a, u. h.) is Glyph B of the Supple- 
mentary Series; and, the fourth (c2d, u. h.) is Glyph A of the Supplementary 
Series. Following this, in the regular position in c2 1. h., c3 is the Initial Series 
terminal date above mentioned. 

A correction in Maudslay’s drawing of c2 |. h. should be noted 
here. A careful study of the original proved beyond any possibility of 
doubt that this glyph is 10 Ahau. A comparison of the writer’s drawing 
with that of Maudsla shows that a very slight 
change in the latter will make it look like the former. 





Glyph c3 as drawn by Maudslay is substantially correct, and it records 
either 8 Uo or 8 Zip, the uncertainty arising from the fact that the prefixial 
or superfixial element which alone differentiates these two month-signs 
from each other (see pp. 66, 67) is effaced. We therefore have recorded 
in c2 |. h. c3 either one of two dates: 10 Ahau 8 Uo, or 10 Ahau 8 Zip. 
Making the customary assumption, 7. ¢., that one of these two dates ended 
a katun, lahuntun, or hotun in the Early Period, it will be found from Good- 
man’s tables that the date 10 Ahau 8 Uo did not occur at all in Cycle 9 at 
the end of a katun, lahuntun, hotun, or even a tun, and that the date Io 
Ahau 8 Zip occurred but once, namely, at 9.5.10.0.0. But it is clear from 
the character of the sculpture on Stela E? that the latter date is too early 
for this monument, and that on stylistic grounds it also must be rejected. 

This necessitates the hypothesis that the Initial Series of Stela E did 
not record a katun, lahuntun, hotun, or tun ending in the Long Count;? 
and the next step in the elucidation of this text is to ascertain at just what 
positions in the Early Period these two dates did occur. A list of these 
follows: 


(1) 9.1. 4.14.0 10 Ahau 8 Uo (5) 9.0. 4.10.0 10 Ahau 8 Zip 
(2) 9.3.17. 9.0 10 Ahau 8 Uo (6) 9.2:17-°5.0 10 Ahau 8 Zip 
(3) 9.6.10. 4.0 10 Ahau 8 Uo (7) 9.5.10. 0.0 10 Ahau 8 Zip 
(4) 9.9. 2.17.0 10 Ahau 8 Uo (8) 9.8. 2.13.0 10 Ahau 8 Zip 


As the first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh dates above are.much too 
early on ecoliceie grounds to have been possible here, we have: only. thee left 
from which to choose. But before attempting to decide Whictt one: »0f these 
is recorded by this Initial Series, let us first examine the remainder of the 
inscription, which is continued on the south side of the stela and concluded 
on the periphery of the round altar, which was associated with it. 





1See Appendix VI. 

2For the position of Stela E in the stylistic sequence of monuments at Copan, see Spinden, 1913, table 1. 

8The accuracy of this hypothesis, of course, also depends upon the correctness of the original assumption 
that c2 1. h. c3 is the terminal date of this Initial Series, concerning which there can be but little doubt. 


IIo THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The only other decipherable glyph on the north side of Stela E is c13 (see 


plate 14, b) which records some day Ahau. The day-sign itself 


’. 


Py 


is perfectly clear, but the coefficient is doubtful, there being ‘J 
either 1 or 2 bars and either 1, 2, or 3 dots. Close examination @ 
of the original led to the conclusion that there are probably 2 bars and 3 dots, 
and that the day recorded here is 13 Ahau. A possible explanation for the 
record of this particular day is that it stands for the Calendar Round date 
13 Ahau 18 Tzec, which is recorded on the opposite or south side of the stela. 

The first surely decipherable glyph on the south side is p10 (see plate 
14, c, third glyph-block from the top). This records the Calendar Round date 
13 Ahau 18 Tzec. Unfortunately the glyphs following this, particularly the 
last three, which might have shed some light on its corresponding position 
in the Long Count, are almost entirely effaced, except p12 |. h. which is 
clearly 9 Ahau, reason for the record of which here will appear later. 

Assistance failing from this source, it is still possible, however, to deter- 
mine at what positions this 13 Ahau 18 Tzec occurred in the Early Period. 
These will be found to have been as follows: 

S15 2i170 9.6.8.7.0 


9.3315.12.0 9.9.1.2.0 
Again we may eliminate the first two on the ground that they are too 


early to be consistent with the style of Stela E; but before attempting to 
decide between the last two, let us examine the continuation of this text, 
namely, the inscription on the accompanying altar. It should be noted, 
however, that 13 Ahau 18 Tzec is within 2 years of 10 Ahau 8 Uo, whereas 
it is separated from the other possible reading of the Initial Series terminal 
date, 10 Ahau 8 Zip, by nearly 20 years. A priori, therefore, 10 Ahau 
8 Uo is a better reading for the Initial Series than to Ahau 8 Zip. 

The altar of Stela EF is of the early drum-shaped variety;! as already 
noted (p. 108), it stands in the Great Plaza just at the base of the terrace on 
which Stela E now lies. So far as the writer knows, a reproduction of its 
text has never been published before. The fragments preserved, of which 
there are two, show that this altar, like the altars of Stele I, 1, 13, 19, and 
5, has glyphs inscribed around its periphery. (See plate 14, d.) 









1Spinden (1913, pp. 160, 161 and table 1) mentions 8 altars of this type, as follows: 


(1) The Altar of Stela 1 (5) The Altar of Stela I 

(2) The Altar of Stela 12 (6) The East Altar of Stela 5 
(3) The Altar of Stela 13 (7) The West Altar of Stela 5 
(4) The Altar of Stela E (8) Altar 14 


The writer, however, believes No. 2 is not an altar at all, but only a roughly rounded stone which served as 
the foundation-stone of Stela 12. It is, moreover, the only undecorated one of the eight, which further tends to 
support this view of is. 

And to these should be added another, the Altar of Stela 19 (No. 9), two fragments of which the writer found 
in 1915. All are of about the same general size, from 1.5 to 2 meters in diameter and from 0.5 to 0.75 meter in 
height. All are sculptured except No. 2; and with the exception of Nos. 2 and 8 all are inscribed with glyphs. 
Of the seven presenting inscriptions, No. 4 belongs to the Early Period and the other six to the Middle Period. 
Nos. 1, 6, and 7 record Initial Series; Nos. 3 and 5, Secondary Series; and Nos. 4 and 9 are incomplete. That 
the inscriptions on these altars are continuations of the inscriptions on the stela with which they were respec- 
tively associated seems probable. This is certainly true of No. 5, and almost certainly true of Nos. 3, 4, and 9. 
But the relationships between Nos. 1, 6, and 7, 1. ¢., the three presenting Initial Series, and their respective 
stele are not so clear, and there are grounds for believing that these last three altars originally may either have 
stood by themselves or have been associated with stelz other than those with which they are now found. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. III 


The glyph-blocks are arranged in two horizontal rows, the upper being 
separated from the lower by a deep horizontal channel or groove, and the 
individual glyph-blocks from each other by vertical channels of the same 
size and depth. 

The fragments preserved show parts of eleven contiguous glyph-blocks in 
the lower band (82-12, plate 14, d) and parts of four in the upper band (p1- ay 
Fortunately there is a Calendar Round date in Fibe2 which GE 
fixes the order of reading as being from left to right and jo) 
top to bottom in pairs of vertical columns, as follows: (Aj, ee 
B1,A2),' B2, (C1),D1,C2,D2, E1,F1,E2,F2, G1,(H1),G2,H2,(11,J1),12, J2, (K1, L1),K2, L2. 

The upper half of rib (the day of this Calendar Round date) is effaced, 
but the lower half shows clearly that it was Ahau. The day-sign coefficient 
originally stood above the day-sign, but it is now broken off. Most happily 
the corresponding month-part in £2 is the clearest glyph in the entire text 
and unmistakably records 18 Uo. Compare this with the forms for Uo 
on p. 66, and see also Appendix X. We have then on this altar a Calen- 
dar Round date, ? Ahau 18 Uo, the only missing part being the day-sign 
coefficient. 

Before attempting to assign this fragmentary date to its proper position 
in the Long Count, a slight digression is first necessary in order to lay before 
the reader certain additional data, which have an important bearing on the 
probable significance of this date. 

Heretofore the hotun-endings commemorated by the stele of the Early 
Period have been those of second and fourth hotuns, that is to say, lahun- 
tuns (half katuns) and katuns respectively, and none has been the first or 
the third quarter of a katun. 

With Stela E, however, as will appear later, the custom of similarly 
commemorating the completion of first and third quarter katuns by the 
erection of stele seems to have been introduced.” 

Of the 29 stele* at Copan, which are known to have Initial Series 
recorded upon them, 6 (Stele 5, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21) are too fragmentary 
or effaced to permit the determination of their exact dates, although even 
some of these, 5, 17, 18 and 20 for example, appear to record hotun-endings; 











1These and the other glyphs following which are inclosed by parentheses, are missing. It is necessary to 
assume the existence of at least one more column (a) to the left of the first one preserved (B), in order to have the 
glyphs follow their proper sequence as given above. 

2 The earliest certain example of this latter practice elsewhere is Stela 25 at Piedras Negras (see plate 1), which 
records the date 9.8.15.0.0 10 Ahau 8 Tzec, 10 tuns earlier than that of Stela E. 


3Namely: 
Stela A Stela J Stela 2 Stela 7 Stela 15 Stela 20 
Stela B Stela M Stela 3 Stela 9 Stela 16 Stela 21 
Stela D Stela N Stela 4 Stela 10 Stela 17 Stela 23 
Stela E Stela P Stela 5 Stela 12 Stela 18 Stela 24 
Stela I Stela 1 Stela 6 Stela 13 Stela 19 


There are 36 stelz in all now known at Copan. The above list does not include the following 7: C and F, which 
show Initial Series introducing glyphs but no accompanying Initial Series (see pp. 345-351 and 353-355); H and 
8, which have only Calendar Round dates (see pp. 351-353, and 340-343), 22 and 25, which are too fragmentary 
to tell anything about (see pp. 68, 69 and 69-71), and 11, which only has a day Ahau (pp. 369, 370). 


II2 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


but of the remaining 23, 19,! or over 82 per cent, have hotun-endings as their 
final dates; that is to say, these 19 are in themselves true hotun-markers. 

Of the remaining 4 (Stele E, I, 10, and 19), even although all their dates 
have been decipered, not one records a hotun-ending. Indeed, unless some 
explanation be advanced to account for this fact, these stele must be regarded 
as important exceptions to the general thesis, already stated several times, 
that all stele were erected or at least dedicated, 7. ¢., put into formal use, 
on katun, lahuntun, or hotun-endings of the Long Count. 

It will appear later, in the description of Stela I, that although its Initial 
Series terminal date is not in itself a hotun-ending, it is continued by a 
Secondary Series on the associated altar, which does lead to a hotun-ending 
(p.179). And if this is true in regard to Stela I and its altar, the question 
at once arises, why may not a similar relation exist between Stela E and its 
altar? 

But we have already seen that this altar has the date ? Ahau 18 Uo on 
it, and by using Goodman’s tables, it will be found that only one hotun in 
Cycle 9 ended on 18 Uo, namely, 9.9.5.0.09 Ahau 18 Uo. We are therefore 
and in accepting this hotun as the date of Stela E and its altar. (iS 

In partial support of this reading, it should be noted that 9 Ahau, Sac 
the day on which this hotun ended, has already appeared before on the stela, 
namely, at p12 1. h. (see plate 14,c, next to last glyph-block). 

So much for the chronological side of Stela E and its altar. Let us next 
ascertain where this monument is to be assigned on stylistic grounds. 

Spinden, in his arrangement of the monuments at Copan according to 
their stylistic criteria, places Stela E between Stele 7 and Pwith considerable 
assurance.2. But we have already seen that the date on Stela 7 was 9.9.0.0.0, 
and it will be shown in the discussion of Stela P to follow (p. 115) that its date 
is equally sure as 9.9.10.0.0; therefore, on stylistic grounds Stela E must 
date from some time during the ten years between 9.9.0.0.0 and 9.9.10.0.0. 
But we have already seen (1) that the altar of Stela E probably shows the 
date 9 Ahau 18 Uo, which closed the only hotun between these two dates, 
i. €., 9.9.5.0.0; and (2) that in the case of Stela I, the altarvassocceee 
with it brought its Initial Series up to the next hotun-ending thereafter. 
The analogy here is so striking that it seems necessary to admit that the 
altar of Stela E originally presented the date 9.9.5.0.09 Ahau 18 Uo, and 
further, that formerly it probably had a Secondary Series number which 
brought the Initial Series terminal date of the stela forward to this hotun- 
ending. ‘This decipherment of the date of Stela E and its altar is further cor- 
roborated by the record of the day of the hotun-ending the two were erected 





Namely: 
Stela A Stela M Stela 1 Stela 4 Stela 9 Stela 15 
Stela B Stela N Stela 2 Stela 6 Stela 12 Stela 23 
Stela D Stela P Stela 3 Stela 7 Stela 13 Stela 24 
Stela J 


*See Spinden, 1913, p. 159 and table 1. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 113 


to commemorate, 9 Ahau, on the stela itself at pi2 I. h., thus linking the 
stela with its altar, which fixes the position of both in the Long Count. 

That the date selected for the altar of Stela E is just midway between 
the dates of Stele 7 and P, and records, moreover, an even hotun-ending in 
the Long Count, will appear from the following: 


Stela 7 9.9. 0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Zotz 
5.0.0 (1 hotun) 

Altar of Stela E 9.9. 5.0.0 (9g Ahau) 18 Uo 
5.0.0 (1 hotun) 

Stela P 9.9.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Pop 


It remains only to select from the list of possible Initial Series on page 109 
the one which was probably recorded on Stela E, and from which a Second- 
ary Series on the altar associated with Stela E probably brought the count 
forward to 9.9.5.0.0. 

An examination of the three Initial Series left on page 10g, the third, 
fourth, and eighth, leads to the conclusion that the fourth (9.9.2.17.0) is the 
one most likely to have been recorded on Stela E for the following reasons: 


1. The third date, 9.6.10.4.0, is too early to be stylistically probable, and on 
this ground almost certainly may be eliminated. 

2. The eighth date, 9.8.2.13.0, is equally improbable, since the Initial Series 
terminal date is almost certainly 10 Ahau 8 Uo and not to Ahau 8 Zip. 
From what remains of the prefix of c3 (the month-sign of the Initial 
Series terminal date) it bears a much closer resemblance to the prefix 
(or superfix) of Uo than it does to the prefix (or superfix) of Zip. Com- 
pare C3 plate 14, b with £2 plate 14, d, and the forms for Uo and Zip given 
on pp. 66, 67, and others in Appendix X. Indeed, there is little doubt 
but that c3 records 8 Uo and not 8 Zip. 

3. The fourth date, 9.9.2.17.0, is nearest the hotun-ending probably recorded 
on the associated altar, 1.¢., 9.9.5.0.0. 

4. The fourth date is the only one between the limits 9.9.0.0.0 and 9.9.10.0.0, 
the period from which Stela E must date on stylistic grounds; and finally, 

5. The fourth date, 9.9.2.17.0, is within 1 uinal of a tun-ending, 1.¢., 9.9.3.0.0. 


For these reasons the writer regards 9.9.2.17.0 10 Ahau 8 Uo as the 
Initial Series of Stela E. 

It is also possible that a Secondary Series number, 2.1.0, was recorded on 
the altar of Stela E, since this number exactly bridges the gap between the 
Initial Series of Stela E and the closing date of its altar as deciphered above; 
and it it also possible that the partially effaced glyphs on the south side of 
Stela E formerly may have presented the distance number 1.15.0, the time 
necessary to bridge the gap between 9.9.1.2.0 13 Ahau 18 Tzec in cio and 
9.9.2.17.0 10 Ahau 8 Uo, the Initial Series terminal date. 

If the former possibility were true, the analogy already pointed out 
between Stela E and its altar and Stela I and its altar would be complete. 

A summary of the inscription on Stela E and its altar, as deciphered, 
follows. 


114 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Stela E, west side, A1—B2 Initial Series introducing glyph 
A3, B3. _—«:£ probably g cycles 
A4, B4 __? probably g katuns 
As, Bs __? probably 2 tuns 
A6, B6 ~—s missing, probably 17 uinals 
A7, B7 ‘missing, probably o kins 
north side, cz |.h. cz 10 Ahau 8 Uo 


C13 13 Ahau, perhaps 13 Ahau 18 Tzec 

south side, Dio 13 Ahau 18 Tzec, perhaps 9.9.1.2.0 
pDi2l.h. g Ahau, perhaps 9.9.5.0.0.0 9 Ahau 18 Uo 

Altar, F1DE2 9 Ahau 18 Uo, probably 9.9. 5- 0.0 


Dyan she multipliers [7. ¢., coeficients] eet ae seems is that éf 
the first group [1. ¢., a3, the cycle Socinneney which represents quite a new form, 
and about which I dare express only a surmise—that it is possibly another form 
of the heiroglyph 9. The multiplier of the second group [i. ¢., a4, the katun 
coefficient] appears to be like that of the third of Stela P [Maudslay, 1889-1902, 
vol. 1, plates 88, 89, A4a] for which the value 13 must be supplied. With the 
third multiplier of Stela E [7. ¢., a5, the tun coefficient] all identification ceases.” 


This text has 23+13+13=49 glyph-blocks the Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph occupying the position of four glyph-blocks. 

Since the only two lines of evidence available—artistic and cirsdolenea 
both agree upon 9.9.5.0.0 as being the most likely date for Stela E, it may 
probably be accepted as correct; and on the basis of this date, as already 
noted, this monument may possibly be referred to Group 9, where the 
previous hotun-marker, Stela 7, is known to have stood in ancient times. 


STELA P. 


Provenance: Original position uncertain, possibly at Group 9. Now 
standing in the Western Court at northwest corner 
of Mound 16 at the Main Structure. (See plate 6.) 


Date: 9.9.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Pop. 


Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 86 and 88. 
Spinden, 1913, plate 18, 3 (front only). ~ 
(b) drawing: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 87-89. 
Morley, 1915, figure 69, B 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, page 772, figure 222. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, facing p. 140 (front only). 
Thomas, 1904, figures 150 and ISI. 


References: _ Bowditch, 1910, pp. 143, 144, and table 29. 
Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 597. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 133. 
Gordon, 1896, pp. 15, 35. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. I of text, pp. 58, 59. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. I, p. 773. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 156, 158, 159, 162, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. I, p. 140. 
Thomas, 1904, pp. 223-226. 





1The assumption that the cycle coefficient is 9 is doubtless correct, but the identification of the katun coefhi- 
cient as 13 can not be substantiated by the evidence adduced. This identification is based upon the 
similarity which Seler believes exists between the katun coefficient of Stela E and the tun coefficient 
of Stela P. Even granting this similarity, which the writer does not, the identification of the katun 
coefficient as 13 collapses, since the tun coefficient of Stela P is not 13 but 10, as will appear in the dis- Beal 


cussion of that monument to follow. 
2Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, p. 774. 


MORLEY. 


PLATE 13 


Ninn 


tl 


Hi 


< 
te 
ca 
Se 
a 
ce 
By 


ie 
a 
Scat 
aod 
wae | 
— 
7 mena 


a 
‘ Ta. Bp 
eat, y 
eel 
4 a 
fd 
toe moss 





Stela 7. Part of the inscription on the back. Drawn from the original. 


ie ECKERT LITHO, CO., WASH.,0.C, 
‘. 
_ 


i 





io 


ie de et id 





tugt ‘Le 
al ao 
<<, 
E 
ee 3 
a 
si» 
3 
* 
or 
1 


ow 





= 


a. 


‘ 
2 
« 
? re | 
. 
+ 
. 
~ 
- 
- = 
5 
; . 
. 
- me 
- 
fi ¥ 
. 
* 
’ 
” 
- 
- 
* 
so? one : 
: 7 
~ 


TY OF 


“api 


LIBRARY 
OF 






~ - > - ts a a - 
xe = a oe - t . — \ 
' ¥ o> i sa ea \ oo 
. Kaen , yo ut 
le ; 
ee: | ge ps ae: 
4 = 
‘ e - + ‘ fi 
: , % - ‘ = ‘ 
a, . : ie 
» 2 f 4 
y a Z M ‘ 
i . 
5 * r te ‘ 
oy . ’ 
v B ok a mA f : * 
= > i ‘ 4 i 
rs . i 4 e H 
as ' 5 
- . 7 Pa 
é . - 4 y oy Shy ; . 
oe tee bag ad 
an af f A 4 : 
; x & ' Mist h 
. é . 
i! i . ‘ 
it : . 
m2 3 . 4 man , ¥ ' 
. i 
< n i F t + 
4 - ’ ” 
* ry 
4 +> . 6 e 
-* e bd 
: ' . : ; \ : 
u + | WY ' 
Lr 4 4 » y om os o 
Pond * 
i » ; i ~ t tac 
‘ F + 
“ 
{ 
* 
2 y 





_ 


i 


—— 








INSRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. IIs 


This monument is the only one from the Early Period described by 
Stephens, who named it Statue B, and it is the first stela thus far presented 
which was standing when found.! It is in the Western Court at the foot of 
Mound 16 and is 3.2 meters long, 76 cm. wide at the widest part, and 66 cm. 
thick. It is wedge-shaped, being wider at the top than at the bottom, which 
gives it a top-heavy and unwieldy appearance. Although it is doubtless 
standing just where it did when the city was abandoned, Stela P can not be 
regarded as in situ strictly speaking, since its date, 9.9.10.0.0, is earlier than 
the earliest possible date of construction of the Western Court. The whole 
southern half of the Main Structure, including the Eastern and Western 
Courts and the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, dates from the Great 
Period, or the latter part of the Middle Period, and any monuments of the 
Early Period found here, as Stela P for example, must have been brought 
thither from some earlier location after 9.15.0.0.0 or thereabouts. 

A parallel case already noted is that of Stela E on the terrace at the 
west side of the Great Plaza. Its early date also clearly indicates that it too 
could not have been im situ where found. It therefore seems likely that 
Stele E and P (successive hotun-markers in the Long Count) were brought 
from some other group to their present positions; and all circumstances 
point to this group having been the large settlement at Group 9, probably 
the largest in the valley during the Early Period, where Stela 7 was found, 
these three monuments, as we have just seen, recording three successive 
hotun-endings in the Long Count. 

The front of Stela P is sculptured with a large human figure, which still 
shows archaic features, the top of the monument being broader than the 
bottom; the effect being wedge-shape. The eyes are bulging, and the arms, 
legs, and face crudely carved, flat, and heavy.” The inscriptions on the back 
and two sides open with Initial Series introducing glyphs, but only that on 
the back is followed by an Initial Series number, a3—asa, Bob, Glyph A, of 
the Supplementary Series appearing in Bea. The number is expressed by 
head-variant numerals, all of which are perfectly clear and record the date 
9.9.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Pop, as follows: 

A1-B2_ Initial Series introducing glyph 


A3 9 cycles 

B3 g katuns 

B4 10 tuns pe 

B4a O uinals 

B4D o kins 

Asa 23 Ahau 

BO6b 13 Pop 


Seler reads the Initial Series of Stela P as 9.9.13.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Uayeb.'! 
This reading, however, is open to five serious objections, four of which 





1Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 140. 

2Spinden, 1913, p. 156. 

’Maudslay’s drawing (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 89, glyph 5 left half) incorrectly shows 1 as the day- 
sign coefficient. A careful study of the original, however, established the presence of two dots and two @ 
ornamental scrolls, as in the accompanying figure, making the number 2 instead of 1. 

4Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, p. 773. 





116 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


exclude even the possibility of his being correct, since they are contradicted 
by evidence in the text itself: 


1. The day coefficient is clearly 2, not 3. 

2. The month-part 3 Uayeb does not appear in the text at all, while the 
month-part 13 Pop is unmistakably recorded in Bé6b at its regular 
position after Glyph A of the Supplementary Series. 

3. An examination of the original showed that the tun coefficient (A4a) 
has the fleshless lower jaw and is therefore to be identified as 10, not 
SESE 

4. 9.9.13.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Uayeb does not end a hotun in the Long Count, 
whereas 9.9.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Pop, which also fulfills all the other 
necessary conditions as to coefhcients, month-sign, etc., does end a 
hotun. 

5. Finally, the record of a lahuntun-ending in B7a corroborates the reading 
9.9.10.0.0 and at the same time disqualifies the Tun 13 reading. 


Seler’s identification of the tun coefficient of Stela P as 13 has led him 
into another error already noted in connection with Stela E, whose katun 
coefficient he calls 13 on the basis of its fancied resemblance to the tun 
coefficient on this monument. Bowditch was the first to decipher the Initial 
Series of Stela P correctly. ff 

An ending-sign appears in A7a, and a hotun-ending may possibly be 
recorded in B7b. B7a is the sign for the lahuntun, mentioned also in the 
discussions of Altar Q’ and Stela 15, pages 61 and 88, respectively, and its 
presence here further corroborates Bowditch’s reading. Other familiar 
glyphs appear throughout the text, B10 for example, probably being 4 katuns 
and pii (south side) 3 katuns. 

This text has 25+25+23=73 glyph-blocks, each of the three Initial 
Series introducing glyphs occupying the space of four glyph-blocks. 

The glyphs on Stela P are excellently carved with an infinite attention 
to detail. Says Bowditch in this connection: “The glyphs of Stela P, Copan, 
are the most ornate and variegated of all the inscription glyphs.’”! 

Even at this early date—the close of the Early Period—the Maya 
sculptors were beginning to show signs of that great ability which was to 
reach its fullest expression a hundred years later. 

With Stela P concludes the presentation of the monuments of the Early 
Period. Before reviewing this material, however, it is first necessary to 
describe briefly a few fragmentary inscriptions of uncertain date, namely, 
Fragments V’ and S’. 

Under V’ are included 14 fragments all surely referable to the Early 
Period and all from the southwestern quarter of the village (see figure 
22h'-v'); and S’ is a reused fragment from mound g at the Main Structure, 
dating from the end of the Early Period or the beginning of the Middle 
Period. 


1Bowditch, 1910, p. 144. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. LE'7. 


FRAGMENTs V’, 


Provenance: Original positions unknown. Found in the excavations 
of the mound of Stela 7, or built into the walls of 
houses or in pavements in the southwestern quarter 
of the village in the immediate vicinity of Stela 7 
(Group 9). Now in the cabildo. (See plate 3, and 
figure 22, h/-v’.) 

Date: Early Period. 


Text, drawing: figure 20. 


Under Fragments V’ have been included 14 small broken pieces show- 
ing glyphs sculptured on one or more sides. All were found in the south- 
western quarter of the village in the immediate vicinity of the mound of Stela 
7 (see figure 22, h’-v’), and some at least probably belong to one or other of 
the broken archaic stele also found nearby, Stele 22, 25, 20, 24, 15, 21, and 
18. When the writer was at Copan in March 1916 he removed all these from 
the various houses and pavements into which they had been built, and placed 
them in the cabildo under the custody of the village authorities; and in 1919 
he installed a small local museum in a room at the southern end of the cabildo, 
where all the fragmentary inscriptions subsequently found were brought 
together. A list of t e monuments and fragments left in the cabildo in June 
1919 follows: 


A. UNDER THE FRONT CorRIDOR OF THE CABILDO. 


1. Stela 7, two large pieces. 
2. Stela 15, two large pieces and one small piece. 


B. Next To Last Room at SouTHERN ENp. 


3. Stela 22, one medium piece. 
4. Stela 21, one small piece. 

5. Stela 20, one large piece and two medium pieces, the latter fitting together. 
6. Stela 24, one large piece. 

7. Stela 25, two small pieces. 

8. Fragment E’, one small piece. 

g. Fragment Y’, one small piece. 
10. Fragment Z’, one small piece. 
11, Altar S, complete i in one piece. 
12. Fragments V’, I-13. 


Concerning the last, Fragments V’, it should be noted before proceeding 
with their detailed examination that all were found within a radius of 100 
meters of Stela 7, and all are probably pieces of one or other of the monu- 
ments also found in the immediate vicinity. 

In making assignments of Fragments V’ to these several stele, the best 
line of evidence available is the sizes of their respective glyph-blocks. While 
these vary as much as 2 or 3 cm. on a single monument in extreme cases, on 
the whole they are exceedingly uniform and furnish the best criterion of 
comparison between any two pieces. In order to facilitate such comparisons 
in the descriptions which follow, a table of the sizes of the glyph-blocks on 
these monuments is given at the top of page 118, all measurements being 
in centimeters. 


118 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Front. Sides. 


Heights. | Widths. | Heights. | Widths. 


Monument. 


Stela Ts eee 29-31 


18-20 15-16 





Fragment V'r. ‘This piece (figure 20, a) was found in the north wall of 
. the house of Domingo Hernandez, whither it had been carried from the 
mound of Stela 7 in 1897. (See figure 22, p’ and q’). The single sculptured 
face preserved has remains of two vertical columns of glyph-blocks, each 
block being 17 cm. high and 24 to 25 cm. wide, indicating that this 
fragment is probably from the front or back of a stela and not from 
the sides. Judging from the glyph-blocks, the original width of the 
monument must have been about 70 cm. Only one of the glyphs is familiar, 
the sign for Kankin. 








Fic. 20.—Inscriptions on: a, Fragment V’1; 6, Fragment V’9; c, Fragment V’10; d, Fragment V’2; 
e, Fragment V’6; f, Fragment V’3; g, Fragment V’s5; 4, Fragment V’14. 

The side adjoining the sculptured face is so badly effaced that it is 
now impossible to say whether it had formerly been plain or sculptured. 
The relief is low and resembles that of the other archaic monuments in the 
immediate vicinity. 

A comparison of the size of the glyph-blocks of this fragment with those 
given in the above table will show that the only ones of similar size are those 
on the side of Stela 20; but we have already seen that the side adjoining the 
sculptured face of this fragment, in spite of much weathering, looks as 
though it had always been plain, indicating that we are dealing with a Class 1 
or Class 2 stela, and therefore the possibility of its having been a part of 
Stela 20 may be eliminated, as the latter is in Class 3. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 119 


Fragment V'2. Vhis piece (figure 20, d) was found in the street pave- 
ment in front of the house of Porfirio Villamil. (See figure 22, u’.) Only 
one glyph-block shows and that is incomplete. Judging from what is left, 
it was from 15 to 16 cm. high and 23 cm. wide. Part of the marginal band 
appears at the left and the adjoining side is plain, which makes this part of a 
Class 1 or a Class 2 stela. As the only satisfactory agreement in the above 
table is with the glyph-blocks on the side of Stela 20, and since Stela 20 
belongs to Class 3, it may be eliminated. 

Fragment V'3. This is a very small piece (figure 20, f), said to have 
been taken from the foundations of Stela 7 in 1918. It is 17 cm. wide and 
15 cm. high. It looks as though it might be part of an Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph. (See figure 22, h’.) 

Fragment V'4. ‘Vhisis avery small piece found 3 meters west of the foun- 
dation-stone of Stela 7 in the excavations of June 1919. (See figure 22, n’.) 

Fragment V'5. ‘This is a very small piece (figure 20, g) 16 cm. wide and 
10 cm. high, with a plain marginal band along its left side. It was found in 
1918 in the street pavement in front of the house of Porfirio Villamil. (See 
figure 22, v’.) 

Fragment V'6. This piece (figure 20, ¢) was found in the mound of Stela 
7 in 1918, 10 meters west of the foundation-stone of Stela 7 and 2 meters 
north. (See figure 22, m’.) The sides are plain and the front and back sculp- 
tured with two vertical columns of glyph-blocks, which show that it belongs 
to a Class 2 stela, and limits our possibilities, at least in so far as the 
above table is concerned, to Stele 24, 16, and 17. The width of the mar- 
ginal band is 5 cm., the height of the glyph-blocks is 18 cm., and the width 
25cm. The relief is about 1 cm. in depth. At first sight it appears barely 
possible that Fragment V’6 might be a part of Stela 24, but a comparison 
of the thicknesses of the two, 29 cm. for Stela 24 and 39 cm. for Fragment 
V’6, precludes this possibility. It is possible, however, that Fragment V’6 
and V’r may have been parts of the same monument, the heights of their 
glyph-blocks being 17 and 18 cm., respectively, and their corresponding 
widths 25 and 24 to 25 cm., respectively. 

Fragment V'7. This is a very small piece, which was found near the 
north end of the mound of Stela 7 during the excavations of June 1919. (See 
figure 22, k’.) 

Fragment V'8. This is a very small piece found near V’6 and at the 
Same time. (See figure 22, 0’.) = - 

Fragment V'9. ‘This piece tian 20, b) was found in the west wall of 
the house of Pedro Ramirez. (See figure 22, z’.) Parts of two glyph-blocks 
show and a plain marginal band to the left, the adjoining side. being plain. 
The present maximum height of the glyph- bleete | is 15 cm. and the maxi- 
mum width 14 cm. 

Fragment V'ro. This piece (figure 20, oy was found in the street pave- 
ment in front of the house of Clementino Lopez. (See figure 22, 7’.) All the 
surfaces, except the single sculptured one, show fractures. Only one glyph- 


I20 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


block is preserved and that only in part, present height 16 cm. and present 
width 23 cm. The relief is low and flat. Theleft halfofthe glyph appears to 
be the head of God C in the Schellhas classification. (Note the characteristic 
dots in front of the face.) The upper part of the right half might possibly 
be the day-sign Ahau, and the lower part the normal form for the cycle-sign. 

Fragment V'tr. This is a very small piece showing only two numerical 
dots. It was found on the mound of Stela 7 during the excavations of June 
1919. (See figure 22, 2’.) 

Fragment V't2. This is a very small piece, which was found on the 
mound of Stela 7 during the excavations of June 1919. (See figure 22, /’.) 

Fragment V'13. ‘This piece was found in the south wall of the house of 
‘ Clementino Lopez. (See figure 22, s’.) It has a plain marginal band on the 
left side, but the sculptured design to the right shows no interglyph spaces 
for its entire length of 34 cm., so that it is doubtful whether it was ever 
part of a glyph, being more like a decorative element. 

Fragment V'1t4. This very small piece (figure 20, h) was found in the 
chamber underneath the foundation-stone of Stela 7 during the excavations 
of June 1919. It is now in the Peabody Museum of Cambridge, Massa- 
chusetts. (See figure 22, 7’.) 

The provenance of these 14 Fragments V’, 7.¢., in the immediate vicinity 
of several incomplete archaic stele, together with their indubitably archaic 
style, makes it probable, as already suggested, that some of them were orig- 
inally parts of one or more of these early stele, which ones, however, it is 
impossible to say definitely with the insufficient evidence at hand. Other 
fragments will doubtless come to light from time to time as houses are pulled 
down in this quarter of the village, and it is therefore highly important that 
such pieces should be rescued and placed on record before they are destroyed. 
At any time other missing pieces may be recovered which will be found to fit 
with one or other of the above fragments or known stele, and which event- 
ually may permit the reconstruction and decipherment of these early texts.! 


FRAGMENT S’. 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Found in the inclined facing 
on the eastern side of Mound 9 at the Main Structure. 
(See plate 6.) 


Date: Close of the Early Period. 
Text, drawing: figure 21. 
Reference: Gordon, 1896, p. 21. 





1This has already been exemplified in the cases of Stele 20 and 25. In 1915 the writer removed a medium- 
sized fragment from the west wall of the house of Pedro Ramirez (see figure 22, y) and had it taken to the cabildo. 
In March of the following year, during the course of tearing down the house of Felix Galvan, just east of where 
the market now stands (see figure 22, z), another inscribed fragment was discovered in its foundations. These two 
pieces were found to fit together and to have been parts of Stela 20, the other piece of which was found by Spinden 
in still a third place, the house of Domingo Hernandez, in 1912. (See figure 22, w.) 

Again, one of the two pieces of Stela 25 (the left-hand fragment) was found on the mound of Stela 7 in 1918, 
and it was not until the following year that the other piece (the right-hand fragment) turned up at the house of 
Domingo Hernandez. These two examples well illustrate the extreme importance of rescuing all inscribed frag- 
ments and placing them on record, since at any time other pieces may be located, which, fitting with those 
already recovered, may enable us to decipher their corresponding dates. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. I2I 


It is evident from the style of Fragments V’ that they all belong to the 
Early Period, but there is less certainty as to the age of Fragment S’; while 
the latter shows secondary usage, it is not clear from its style whether it 
dates from the latter part of the Early Period or from the Middle Period. 

Fragment S’ (see figure 21) was found with its sculptured face turned 
down, on the inclined facing of the east side of Mound 9 at the Main Struc- 
ture. In reshaping it for this use, part of the original design was broken 
off. In its present condition it is 55 cm. long, 36 cm. wide, and 13 cm. thick. 

The single sculptured face preserved formed 
part of the right-hand side of some monument, as 
the original right-hand marginal band is still to be 
seen. (See figure 21.) All that is now left of the in- 
scription, however, is part of one glyph-block. The 
first glyph is the sign found almost invariably with 
Secondary Series, which it usually precedes. The 
next is 11 uinals or 220 days. The last glyph— C 
only part of which is preserved—is a day. The Fic. 21—Inscription on 
upper part of the day-sign may still be distinguished, Pee 
as well as the upper part of its coefficient, which must have been either 2, 3, 
or 4, with the best reading at 2 or 3. A scroll, the significance of which is not 
clear, appears between the day-sign and its coefficient. The relief, though 
low and flat, is very well executed. 

Mound 9, where this fragment was found, probably was constructed 
during the early part of the Middle Period, since Stela 1, which was built 
into the second step of the stairway on its western side (see plate 6, and p. 
163), records the hotun-ending 9.11.15.0.0. 

This monument had a cruciform chamber underneath its foundations like 
the one under Stela 7, already described, which was opened by the Fourth 
Peabody Museum Expedition in 1895 (pp. 161, 162). The complexity of 
this chamber with relation to Mound 9 was such as to have necessitated 
its having been constructed at the same time that Mound 9 was being built; 
that is, at the same time Fragment S’ was being reused in the inclined facing 
on the opposite side. This, therefore, would appear to make Fragment S’ 
earlier than 9.11.15.0.0, but how much earlier it is impossible to say. Its 
stylistic characteristics find their closest affinities with sculptures dating from 
the close of the Early Period or the beginning of the Middle Period, to 
which katuns, 9.9.0.0.0-9.11.0.0.0, it is probably to be referred. 





w-<-—<——-— 7 
a Bas 
4 
—ee ewer oe 


The two most striking points in connection with the monuments of the 
Early Period at Copan are (1) their provenance and (2) their periodicity, 
each of which will bear further elaboration, since upon the first rests the 
whole question of the earliest intensive occupation of the valley and the 
first center of population, and upon the second probably hinges the very 
meaning of the Maya monuments. 


122 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Concerning the first, we have seen that not one of the monuments of the 
Early Period may be regarded as in situ, strictly speaking, a number even 
showing evidence of secondary use in ancient times; further, that half of 
them are not even at the Main Structure, but at a smaller cluster of mounds, 
Group 9, 2 kilometers to the west, now the site of the modern village. 

Of the twenty-two early monuments! under observation, only one, 
Stela P, was found standing, and even this, as already pointed out, must 
originally have been erected elsewhere; in short, with the possible exception 
of Stela 7, which, though fallen, is probably somewhere near its original 
position, none may be regarded as im situ, since none has been found in the 
position for which it was originally designed. In fact, more than a third 
“show signs of secondary use before the city was abandoned, chiefly in having 
been used in the foundations of later stele, but in one case at least, Stela 21, 
in having been built into a later building (see p. 95). 

If, then, none of the archaic monuments is now 77 situ, where were their 
original positions? Where was the earliest settlement in the valley on the 
basis of the dated remains? As already pointed out, twelve of the early 
monuments were found at Group 9, the site of the modern village, and two 
more in the immediate vicinity, at Groups 8 and Io, respectively. Six others 
are at the Main Structure, and two others some 4.5 kilometers to the west, at 
Group 12. That is, more than half of them are in one place, namely, Group 
g, and that group not the one which later became the most important in the 
valley. This would tend to indicate that the first center of intensive occupa- 
tion in the region was not at the Main Structure but at Group 9, 2 kilo- 
meters farther west. 

A detailed study of the early monuments themselves further corrob- 
orates this hypothesis. Of the ten® outside the limits of Group 9, seven’ 
show unmistakable signs of secondary usage, and the remaining three‘ are 
probably not in situ. 

When we come to the twelve monuments® at Group 9, on the other 
hand, only two, Stele 21 and 24, show unmistakable signs of secondary 
usage in ancient times, and although most of the remaining ten are now 
more or less mutilated, this can probably be charged in many if not most 
cases to modern vandalism rather than to reuse while the city was occupied. 

Unfortunately the modern village was located on the site of this earliest 
group, its plaza probably coinciding with that of the ancient settlement. 
The modern settlement itself must date as far back as the eighteenth cen- 
tury, although until within the past four decades its growth has been slow. 
Galindo says there were only three houses west of the Sesesmil River, 2.2., 
where the village now stands, when he was at Copan in 1834, and both 
Stephens in 1839 and Maudslay in 1881 found it still a miserable collection 








1This does not include Fragments V’ and S’, as already stated in note I, p. 55. 

*Stelw 16, 17, E, P, and 9, and Altars X, Y, A’, J’, and K’, at the Main Structure, and Groups 8, 10, and 12. 
3Stela 16 and g and Altars X, Y, A’, J’, K’. 

4Stela E, P, and 17. 

5Stelz 7, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25, and Altars L’, M’, P’, and Q’. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 123 


of huts; finally, Cristina Ramirez describes it as having only a dozen odd 
ranchos scattered in small clearings in the bush during her childhood, about 
1845 to 1860. 

‘During the past ten years the writer has noticed the construction of a 
number of municipal buildings: a new town-hall, school-house, church, two 
bridges, market, and many new dwellings. This recent growth has been 
accomplished at the expense of the archeological remains at Group 9, how- 
ever, and there can be no doubt that a number of archaic monuments have 
been broken up within the past thirty years to be used in the construction of 
these buildings. The fragments described as V’ amply establish this. Even 
in the face of this extensive recent destruction, however, more archaic 
monuments have survived here than at any other group in the valley, 
and it therefore would appear probable that more stood here originally than 
anywhere else. 

Weighing all the evidence, therefore, (1) the provenance of the early 
monuments, (2) their present condition, 7. ¢., whether they have been reused 
in ancient times or not, and (3) the dates inscribed upon them, the case may 
be summed up as follows: 

The earliest center of population in the valley, at least the earliest 
characterized by sculptures in stone, what might perhaps appropriately be 
termed Old Copan, would appear to have been the group of mounds 2 
kilometers west of the Main Structure, and now the site of the modern village, 
Group 9. Here the very earliest dated monuments are found, not only 
in greatest number, but also under conditions least indicative of secondary 
usage. 

This group of mounds was built on an artificially leveled terrace cut 
from the lower slopes of the foothills on the northern side of the valley, 
probably growing up around the mound of Stela 7 as its most important 
ceremonial center. (See plate 3 and figure 22). The little Rio Sesesmil 
nearby afforded a convenient and abundant water-supply, and the rich allu- 
vial bottom lands to the east, south, and west, between the foothills and the 
Copan River, gave sufficient tillage area to have supported a not inconsid- 
erable population. In short, the location was happy, and the community 
prospered, in all probability becoming the principal settlement in the valley 
as far back as the Early Period. 

It is not unlikely that most of the monuments of this period—even those 
reused in later constructions in other parts of the valley such as Stele E 
and P at the Main Structure for example—were originally erected at Old 
Copan and were not removed to their present positions until after 9.10.0.0.0. 

As early as the closing years of the Early Period, however, the practice 
of reusing early monuments in later constructions seems to have com- 
menced. Thus, for example, Stela 24 was placed in the foundations of 








1In this connection it should be remembered, that in addition to Stela 7, which is the only monument of the 
Early Period at Copan which it is at all possible to regard as im situ, seven other early monuments: Altars Q’ and 
P’, and Stel 25, 20, 24, 15, and 18, as well as numerous fragments of early stela, have been traced to this same 
mound. 


124 


THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Fia. 22.—Sketch-map of Group 9 showing location of monuments at the Village of Copan. 


es | 





ee ca 





STELA 7 


1 


lea! 


- House of Don Rafael Villamil. 

. House of Don Felix Galvan (destroyed), 
. Former rancho south of the old church. 
. House of Don Domingo Herndndez, 

. House of Don Florencio Lemos. 

. House of Don Clementino Lopez. 


Altar T when first discovered. 
Present position of Altar T. 
Altar U when first discovered. 
Present position of Altar U. 
Fragment E’ when first discovered. 
Fragment ly’ from 1885 to 1917. 
Altar L’ when first discovered. 
Altar L’ from 1892 to 1915, destroyed in 1916. 
Altar M’ when first discovered. 
Altar M’ from 1892 to 1915, destroyed in 1916. 
Stela 21 when first discovered. 
Altar S when first discovered. 
. Present position of large plain stela. 
Present position of Altar U’, 
Original position of Stela 7. 
Stela 7 when found by the First Peabody Museum 
Expedition in 1892. 
Stela 24 when first found in foundations of Stela 7 in 1916. 
Fragment of Stela 15 found by the writer in 1915. 
He per ane original position of Stela 15. 
Stela 15 from about 1850 to 1894. 
. Stela 15 from 1894 to 1913. 
Approximately original position of Stela 20. 
. Stela 20 from 1897 to 1917 (Fragment 1). 
. Approximately original position of Stela 18. 
. Piece of Stela 20 found in 1915 (Fragment 2), 
Piece of Sjela 20 found in 1916 (Fragment 3). 


NCHESKESAO BPORZMSS SOPs as ss Syyowp 





CERIBA TREE 


nM Lb 





LEGEND 


Capital letters—Private properties mentioned. 
Small letters—Monuments. 

@ Probable original positions of monuments. 
CJ] Later positions of monuments. 


Originally house of Dofia Ana C. Orellano. 

. Small house belonging to Don Juan Ramon Cuevas. 
House of Don Juan Ramon Cuevas. 

House of Don Pedro Ramirez. 

House at the southeast corner of the plaza. 

House of Don Porfirio Villamil. 


Present position of Stela 18. 
Approximately original-position of Altar Q’. 
Present position of Altar Q’. 
Altar P’ when first discovered, now destroyed, 
Approximately original position of Stela 25. 
Fragment of Stela 25 discovered in 1918. 
Fragment of Stela 25 discovered in 1919. 
Fragment V’3 when first discovered. 
Fragment V’1l when first discovered. 
Fragment V’14 when first discovered. 
Fragment V’7 when first discovered. 
Fragment V’12 when first discovered. 
. Fragment V’6 when first discovered. 
Fragment V’4 when first discovered. 
Fragment V’8 when first discovered. 
Approximately original position of Fragment V’ 1. 
Fragment V’1 from 1897 to 1916. 
Fragment V‘10 when first discovered. 
Fragment V’13 when first discovered. 
Fragment V’9 when first discovered. 
. Fragment V’2 when first discovered. 
Fragment V’5 when first discovered. 
. Fragment of Stela 22 when first discovered. 
Note. Of the above pieces those represented by the fol- 
lowing letters are now in the cabildo at the Village of Copan: 


AS "mo 


eal i gy 


Lae 
hie De 


LIRA 


mahi dee te 8 


: 
~ 


S, k,l, D, a7, U, wy, 2,f/,9', h’, i’, k’, U, m’, n’, 0’, p’, r’, 8’, t, 


u’, v', and w’; j’ is in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 125 


Stela 7 as early as 9.9.0.0.0. In the Middle Period Altars J’ and K’ were 
used in the foundations of Stela 10 as early as 9.11.0.0.0;! Fragment S’ in 
Mound 9g by 9.11.15.0.0, and Altar X in the foundations of Stela 5, by 
9.13.15.0.0 or 9.14.0.0.0. Possibly also Stela E and its altar may have been 
removed from Old Copan to their present positions about this time. 

Coming down to the Great Period, Altar A’ had certainly been reused 
in the Hieroglyphic Stairway before 9.16.5.0.0, and Stela P had probably 
been re-erected in the Western Court before 9.17.0.0.0. Similarly Altar Y 
had been reused in the foundations of Stela 4 and Stela g in the foundations 
of Stela 8 before 9.17.13.0.0. And finally, Stele 16, 17, and 21 can not be 
in situ where found, but must have come from some earlier group. 

Old Copan doubtless shared the fate of many another city of antiquity 
in becoming even in ancient times a quarry for later constructions. The 
monuments were always made of the best material available—selected 
stones—and it is not surprising, therefore, to find that they have been exten- 
sively reused in later constructions, particularly in places where large, heavy 
slabs were required, as in the foundation-stones for other stele. In the case 
of a few monuments like Stele E and P, too fine to be broken up and used as 
building material or in the foundations of later stele, they were removed to 
the Main Structure, which by the end of the Middle Period had in turn 
become the principal settlement in the valley, and were re-erected there. 

Classified according to the arrangement of their designs, the archaic 
stele may be arranged as follows: 

1. Stelz having inscriptions on one face only, the remaining three faces 
being plain: Stelz 22 and 25. 

2. Stele having inscriptions on two alternate faces, the remaining two 
faces being plain: Stelz 16, 17, and 24. 

3. Stela having inscriptions on all four faces: Stel 20, 15, 21, and 9. 

4. Stele having inscriptions on three faces, the fourth being carved with 
the representation of the human figure: Stela 18, 7, FE, and P. 

There would certainly appear to be some chronological sequence in the 
origins of these classes, as we have already seen, since the monuments of 
Classes 1, 2, and 3 clearly have earlier dates than those of Class 4. 

Turning to a more detailed consideration of the periodicity of the dates 
recorded, it will be found helpful if we first classify the monuments under 
observation into the two fairly obvious and generally recognized types— 
stele and altars. 

Confining our attention for the present to the former, it will be found 
by referring to the preceding pages that in spite of some differences in the 
presentation of their several inscriptions, all stele of the Early Period at 
Copan, with two possible exceptions’ have this one point in common—all 
record Initial Series. 





1The exact date of Stela 10 is 9.10.19.13.0 or 100 days earlier than 9.11.0.0.0. 
2Stelz 22 and 25 can hardly be regarded as exceptions to this statement, since each is too fragmentary to tell 
anything about what kind of a count had or had not been recorded upon it. 


126 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


So universal indeed would seem to have been this practice that we may 
safely make it the basis for our first generalization, namely, that all stele 
of the Early Period at Copan present Initial Series. 

The dates recorded by these different Initial Series are repeated for con- 
venience in the following list, those marked (?) being open to some doubt, 
and those marked (??) being quite uncertain: 


Stela 20 9.1.10.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Tzec (?) 
Stela 24 9.2.10.0.0 3 Ahau 8 Cumhu 
Stela 25 g.2.10.0.0 3 Ahau 8 Cumhu (?) 
Stela 15 9.4.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Mol 

Stela 17 9.6. 0.0.0 9g Ahau 3 Uayeb (?) 
Stela 9 9.6.10.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Pax 

Stela 16 9.7. 0.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Kankin (??) 
Stela 18 9.7. 0.0.0 7Ahau 3 Kankin (?) 
Stela 9.9. 0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Zotz 


7 
Stela E and altar 9.9. 5.0.0 9g Ahau 18 Uo 
Stela P 9.9.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Pop 


Of the foregoing Initial Series all those which have been surely deci- 
phered-—six out of the eleven—record hotun-endings in the Long Count; 
and in the doubtful cases, the hotuns suggested appear to be the best readings 
in each case. This condition may be made the basis for a second generaliza- 
tion, as follows: All stele of the Early Period at Copan probably recorded 
hotun-endings in the Long Count; that is, they were hotun-markers. 

It is further apparent from the above list that of the four stele prior 
to 9.9.5.0.0, the dates of which are surely deciphered, 24, 15, 9, and 7, not one 
records a first or third hotun-ending, which condition may be summarized 
as follows: All stele of the Early Period at Copan prior to 9.9.5.0.0 prob- 
ably record second and fourth hotun-endings only, that is, lahuntun and 
katun-endings, respectively. 

~ Tt will’be noted in the foregoing table that there are still eight lahuntuns 
and katuns affer 9.1.10.0.0, the earliest date deciphered at Copan, for which 
no corresponding stele have yet been found, as follows: 


9.2. 0.0.0 9.5-10.0.0 
9.3. 0.0.0 9.7-10.0.0 
9.3.10.0.0 9.8. 0.0.0 
9.4. 0.0.0 g.8.10.0.0 


Whether or not these particular hotuns were ever thus commemorated 
is uncertain. We have seen that a number of archaic monuments were 
reused in later constructions, and it is quite possible that future excava- 
tions may bring to light some of these missing stele. On the other hand, it is 
equally possible that many of the earlier lahuntun and katun-endings may 
have been allowed to pass without the erection of corresponding monuments. 
In the present state of knowledge such questions can not be answered; all 
that can be safely ventured in this direction is to point out the possibility— 
scarcely more—of their former existence. 


1In the generalizations which follow, Stela 21 and 22 have been omitted, as their inscriptions are so fragmentary 
as to make it impossible to determine whether these generalizations apply to them or not. 


MORLEY. 












Ir 


ECKERT LITHO, CO., WASH,,0,.C, 


Altar of Stela EF} 








PLATE 14 


-—— a eg 





Altar of Stela E. Part of the inscription on the periphery. Drawn from the original. 


ECKERT LITHO. CO.. WASH.,O.C, 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE EARLY PERIOD. 127 


From the foregoing it seems safe, however, to make one other general- 
ization concerning the stele of the Early Period which embodies the other 
three, as follows: 

The stela type of monument was used at Copan, perhaps primarily, to 
mark the passage of time; while at first the period selected for this purpose 
seems to have been the katun and half katun, 7. ¢., the lahuntun, toward the 
close of the Early Period (9.9.5.0.0), it was replaced by the hotun or quarter 
katun, which from this time forward for over 250 years continued to be the 
chronological unit governing the erection of stele among the Maya. This 
condition, deducible from the monuments of the Early Period here at Copan, 
will be found to have prevailed not only during the Middle and Great Periods 
here, but also throughout the whole southern Maya field, during the Old 
Empire.! 

The second type of monument mentioned above, 7. ¢., altars, are all of 
one general class in the Early Period—rectangular blocks of stone decorated 
with intersecting bands, which cross each other at right angles, except the 
altar of Stela E, which is round.’ Five and possibly six of them, Altars J’, 
K’, L’, M’, Q’, and possibly P’, have the grotesque serpent’s head as their 
principal decoration, and three, Altars X, Y, and A’, a number of small 
human figures in profile. 

We have just seen that the stele of the Early Period all record Initial 
Series. Now, an examination of the archaic altars discloses the fact that not a 
single one records a date of this kind. Here, then, is an important difference 
in subject-matter between the two. Stele in the Early Period at Copan 
seem to have been used to record the ends of successive hotuns, lahuntuns, 
or katuns in the Long Count. Altars do not. Stele frequently stand by 
themselves; altars very rarely do, being almost invariably associated with 
the larger type of monument. In the case of Stele E and I, the altars with 
which they are associated conclude their respective inscriptions. Strong 
reasons have already been advanced tending to show that Altars X and Y 
originally may have been associated with Stele 16 and 17. So general, in- 
deed, seems to have been this practice that we may summarize the situation 
at Copan as follows: Most monuments of the altar type were originally 
associated with stele, each stela having its own particular altar. 

The name “altar” has been generally applied to the smalle: monu- 
ments found associated with the stele, and perhaps not without reason. It 
is obvious that they were subordinate to the stele, serving in some secondary 
capacity to them. Indeed, it is quite possible they may have been true 
altars, 7. ¢., places where sacrifices were offered and incense burned, perhaps 





1$ee Appendix VII and Morley, 19176. 

2This altar is probably the earliest of its type (see p. 110, note 1) which reached its highest development in 
the Middle Period. See also Chapter III, where it will be more fully described. 

3Although the front and back of Altar A’, which presented these small human figures, are now missing, their 
former existence can hardly be doubted, since the remaining surface is almost identical in treatment with the 
corresponding surfaces of Altars X and Y, which have these small human figures on their fronts and backs. 


128 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


in connection with the erection of the hotun-markers or other religious 
festivals. 

As this practice of associating altars with stele obtained generally 
throughout the Middle and Great Periods at Copan, it seems reasonable to 
assume that it also prevailed during the Early Period, even though no 
archaic stele or altars have yet been found in situ. If this is true, it is prob- 
able that some, at least, of the archaic altars already described were formerly 
associated with some of the archaic stele previously described. 

Omitting for the moment the altar of Stela E and possibly Altars X, 
Y, and Q’, as already accounted for, the last three with Stele 17, 16, and 15, 
respectively, there are left six altars (A’, J’, K’, L’, M’, and P’) which may have 
been associated with nine stele (20, 24, 25, 21, 22, 18, 9,7, and P). Since 
Altars L’, M’, and P’ and Stele 20, 25, 18, 21, 22, and 7 were all found at the 
same group, namely, No. 9, it is possible, indeed probable, that some at 
least of the former were originally associated with some of the latter. 

On the other hand, some archaic stele and altars may have been lost or 
even destroyed. Thus, for example, it is possible that the stela formerly 
associated with Altar A’ has not yet been found. Altars X, Y, and A’ are 
very similar, differing from all the other archaic altars at Copan. Also, 
Stele 16 and 17, with which X and Y may have been associated, differ from 
all the other archaic stele now known. It seems not unlikely, therefore, that 
a stela like 16 and 17 may have been originally associated with Altar A’, 
although such a one has not yet been found. 

A tentative correlation of the stele and altars of the Early Period is 
suggested below: 


Stela 24 with Altar L’, M’ or P’ Stela 16 with Altar Y 

Stela 20 with Altar L’, M’ or P’ Stela 7 with Altar L’, M’ or P’ 

Stela 15 with Altar Q’ Stela E now associated with its original altar 
Stela 25 with Altar L’, M’ or P’ Stela P 

Stela 18 with Altar L’, M’ or P’ Stela ? with Altar J’ 

Stela 17 with Altar X Stela  ? with Altar K’ 

Stela 9 Stela  ? with Altar A’ 


While it may be safely accepted as a general proposition that the archaic 
stele had certain definite altars originally associated with them, it is exceed- 
ingly hazardous in the absence of direct textual connection, as in the case of 
Stele E and its altar, or perhaps Stela 15 and Altar Q’ for example, to go 
farther than to point out the possibility of such correlations, although some 
of the combinations suggested above doubtless formerly existed. 

In closing the presentation of the inscriptions of the Early Period, it 
should be borne in mind that even though the total number of monuments 
under observation is relatively small, the tendencies which they exhibit— 
particularly the periodicity of the dates on the stele—are nevertheless highly 
significant, since they faithfully forecast the chronological practices of the 
later periods, and at the same time shed a ray of light upon the probable 
use, if not indeed upon the very meaning of the Maya monuments, as pri- 
marily marking the passage of successive chronological units, the hotuns, 
jn the Long Court. 


CHAPTER III. 


THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 


The Early Period at Copan doubtless merged into the Middle Period 
without any break in the sequence of the sculptured monuments. It must 
be admitted, however, that no sculptures have yet been found which may be 
assigned to the hotuns from 9.9.15.0.0 to 9.10.15.0.0' inclusive. Whether 
or not these particular hotuns were ever commemorated by the erection of 
stele and, if so, whether the stele marking them have been destroyed, or 
still lie buried somewhere in the valley, is unknown, although the latter 
contingency appears unlikely. It is possible, moreover, that after the erec- 
tion of Stele 7, E and P, there was a lull in this highly specialized work, a 
pause before the tremendous outburst of sculptural activity which occurred 
in the hotun ending in 9.11.0.0.0, on which latter date no less than four, and 
probably seven, different stele were erected. 

During this period the sculptors of the city may have been otherwise 
engaged, possibly in decorating some of the buildings then in course of con- 
struction. Whatever explanation is advanced to account for this break in 
the chronologic sequence of the monuments between the Early and Middle 
Periods, it is quite clear, from the monuments themselves, that there was no 
corresponding break in the art sequence. ‘The earliest sculptures of the 
Middle Period present no radical departures from previous types; and it is 
clear from them that the ancient sculptors plied their art without the 
intrusion of alien influences sufficiently strong to modify perceptibly the 
stylistic development. The technique is a little more finished, the proportions 
of the human figure somewhat more natural, the treatment a trifle freer; in 
a word, practice was making every monument more and more perfect; pro- 
gress was continuous and consistent; and stone-cutting had already become 
a fine art. 

The crowning architectural achievement of the period seems to have 
been the building of the Great Plaza at the Main Structure, the laying-out 
of which took place some time after 9.12.5.0.0, as we have already seen, and 
probably prior to 9.13.10.0.0._ This important construction may be said 
to mark the next great step forward in the history of the tribe or people 
who inhabited the Copan Valley. 

By the middle of the Middle Period, the chief center of population had 
probably shifted from Old Copan (Group g) to the Main Structure; and 
from this time onward the history of this branch of the Maya becomes the 
history of the Main Structure, and here in temple, palace, court, and plaza 
the record of its progress is magnificently set forth. The scattered occu- 





1There are some grounds for assigning Stele 12 and 2 to this hotun (see pp. 135, 140), but evenif this were 


true, it would reduce the above hiatus of 25 years by only about 5 years. 
129 


130 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


pation of the valley was over, and the strong centralizing influence which 
had doubtless been present from the first had finally culminated in the 
foundation of a main group or chief city, toward the embellishment of which 
almost all the future efforts of the tribe, both in sculpture and architecture, 
were henceforth to be directed. 

It should be borne in mind that this extensive building program probably 
absorbed the energies of a large part of the artisan class, and was not carried 
out without corresponding sacrifices in other directions. ‘Thus, it is not 
surprising to find that when the construction of the Great Plaza was at its 
height, probably from 9.13.10.0.0 to 9.14.10.0.0, no stele or monuments of 
any sort, with the possible exception of Stela 5, were erected, at least none 
dating from this period has yet been found. 

A similar hiatus in the monumental sequence seems to have prevailed 
in the Great Period during the building of the Hieroglyphic Stairway 
(9.15.5.0.0 to 9.16.5.0.0) and another during the construction of Temples 
Il, 21a, and 22 (9.16.10.0.0 to 9.17.0.0.0), although in the two latter cases 
a few minor monuments fill the gaps. 

It seems possible, therefore, in view of the foregoing, that the lack of 
monuments which may be referred to the first four and last five hotuns of the 
Middle Period may be explained on the grounds that the artisan class, and 
more particularly the stone-cutters and sculptors, were engaged in other 
work, perhaps in the decoration of buildings then in course of construction, 

There are 18! monuments now known which may be referred to the 
Middle Period. ‘That excavation would materially increase this number 
appears doubtful, since there seems to have been little or no secondary use 
of monuments of the Middle Period; indeed, so far as the larger monuments 
are concerned, all the Middle Period stele are either in situ or have fallen 
just where they originally stood.’ 

In describing the earliest group of monuments of the Middle Period, 7. ¢., 
Stele 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 19, and 23—only the first two of which are found at the 
Main Structure, and possibly may not be im situ there (see note 2 below)— 
there is some little difficulty in determining the best order of presentation, 
since all seven probably record the same date, namely, 9.11.0.0.0. On the 
basis of stylistic criteria, Spinden arranges them in the following order: 
12, 10, 13, 19, 2, 3, and 23, as the following statement, prepared at the writer’s 
request, will show: 

“Stela 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 19 and 23 at Copan bear inscribed dates that fall on or 
about Katun 11 of Cycle 9, and it 1s an interesting question what difference, if any, 


they show in style of sculpture. Unfortunately, only Stele 2 and 3 have full-length 
human figures, the other monuments being given over to hieroglyphs. 








1This does not include the altars of Stele I, 6, 13, and 19 and Fragment Y’. These altars are not counted as 
separate monuments in the above total, since each presents an inscription which is a continuation of that on the 
accompanying stela, the two inscriptions in each case being textually one, and the two monuments in each case 
being functionally one. Both the provenance and date of Fragment Y’ are unknown. On stylistic grounds 
it has been referred to the Middle Period, a list of the monuments of which will be found in Appendix IX. 

2 Stela 2 and 3 at the Main Structure may be possible exceptions to this statement. Although they are cer- 
tainly in the same positions which they occupied during the Great Period, it is possible, though hardly prob- 
able, that they may have been removed thither from some earlier outlying groups. 


_ 








MORLEY. : PLATE 15 








Poe Led 


; ¥ ‘ ‘A, 
¥ Bio i 

ers 
& EP APAS kta 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 131 


“Now, it has already been pointed out that on the whole the stelz of Copan 
with human figures are remarkably homogeneous. The pose in all cases is essen- 
tially the same and the object carried in the arms is always the Ceremonial Bar. At 
other cities such homogeneity does not appear, since some figures are found in pro- 
file presentation and others in front view, while the Ceremonial Bar often gives way 
to the spear, the Manikin Scepter, etc. All the Copan stelz (with the exception 
of Stela 23, which I have not seen) show the human figure in a stiff, formal, and 
symmetrical front-view presentation, with the heels together, the Ceremonial Bar 
held across the breast in the two arms, and with the eyes looking straight ahead. 

“Details of dress, etc., are found upon closer analysis to vary considerably. 
Entire series of monuments are characterized by the practical repetition of certain 
complexes or arrangements of details, and in many instances, the finer criteria of 
sequence in style are based upon changes and developments within these complexes. 
To make the comparison in the present case more difficult, Stela 2 belongs to one 
series of monuments (18, 7, E, P, 2, and I), while Stela 3 may be placed in another 
series (3, 5,C, and 4). To be sure, the line of demarkation is not very clear and 
there are several similar features that bind Stele 3 and 5 to the former series. 

““Stela 2 is found to resemble Stela P and Stela 3 to resemble Stela I. Now, 
Stela P is dated 9.9.10.0.0 and Stela I is dated 9.12.5.0.0. These respective 
resemblances and differences might indicate, then, that Stela 2 was carved some- 
what earlier than Stela 3, since it inclines toward the earlier style. The lower half 
of Stela 2 is, in fact, almost a part-for-part copy of Stela P. In each we see a simi- 
lar object under the elbows, a girdle, and jaguar-skin skirt with much the same 
details, an apron of exactly the same type, and hanging down on either side of the 
body a twisted serpent from the mouth of which hangs a tassel-like detail. It is 
somewhat more difficult to compare Stele 3 and I, because the former has two 
human figures instead of one and these two figures are found to differ considerably 
from each other. In all cases, however, the object under the elbows is wanting 
and the girdle is extended upward to cover the space. The aprons are of vary- 
ing patterns and so can not be compared. The pendant objects at the sides of 
the body are much elaborated and modified, and as a result the surviving features 
of serpent heads can be made out with difficulty. 

““When we turn to the general proportions of the body, we find a very consid- 
erable difference between Stelz 2 and 3, with the former again belonging to the 
earlier style. In fact, in my first table of proportions (Spinden, 1913, p. 158), the 
proportions of Stela 2 are very close to those of Stela P, while those of Stela 3 seem 
to be even further advanced than Stela I toward the canon that ruled at Copan in 
the Great Period. To be sure, these measurements of Stela 3 are based on photo- 
graphs and the sculpture itself is so mutilated that the points can not be exactly 
determined. But the difference between the proportions of Stela 2 and 3 are obvi- 
ously great, especially in the length of the bust. Moreover, the relief is nearly twice 
as high. 

“Earlier in the discussion it was stated that Stela 3 may be placed in a series 
with Stele 5, C, and 4. The basis of this grouping is the feature of small human 
figures by the side of the head-dress in the upper corners. ‘These little figures hold 
Ceremonial Bars in their arms. ‘Supernumerary’ figures occur in several other 
instances without these Ceremonial Bars, the nearest approach to the style and 
arrangement of the series named above being seen in Stele FE and I. Now, the 
Ceremonial Bars carried in the arms of the small figures are all of the rigid type, 
which, as far as the principal figure is concerned, does not appear at Copan till 


Palks0.0-0; 


132 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


“Taken all in all, we have every reason to believe that Stela 2 was carved at a 
somewhat earlier time than Stela 3, but I should not care to express an opinion con- 
cerning the actual time difference, in view of our rather unsatisfactory data on the 
art of the Middle Period at Copan. 

“We still have the hieroglyphs for study, and here we can extend our compari- 
sons to the all-glyphic Stelz 10, 12,13, and 19. It is true that the hieroglyphs of 
this entire group belong to one general type midway between the flat angular glyphs 
of the Early Period (Stela 9, for instance) and the high and nicely modeled glyphs 
of the later, Great Plaza stele, beginning with Stela A. The glyph-blocks are in 
relief in a sunken panel. The details of the glyphs have a rounded delineation but 
an angular relief. The amount of relief varies somewhat, being lowest in the case 
of Stela 12. Particular points of similarity are seen in decorative details on bars 
and in the treatment of faces when these occur in the glyphs.” 


However defensible such a sequence may be on stylistic grounds, there 
are present other considerations of a chronologic nature which indicate the 
advisability of a slightly different order of presentation here. It will be 
found in the following pages that these seven monuments, chronologically 
considered, divide naturally into three groups, as follows: Stele 12 and 2, 
which may be a hotun earlier than the others, Stele 10, 19, and 23, and 
Stele 13 and 3; and since Stela 12, stylistically considered, is clearly the 
earliest, and Stela 3, on the same grounds, is as clearly the latest, it seems 
best to follow this latter order in describing them. 


STELA 12. 


Provenance: On the western slope of the mountain, 2.5 kilometers 
ea t of the Main Structure at Group 3, 188.6 meters! 
above the level of the Great Plaza. (See plate 3.) 


Date: g.10.15.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Mac, or 
9.11. 0.0.0 12 Ahau. 8 Ceh.? 


Text, a) photograph: plate 17. 
(b) drawing: _ plate 17. 
References: Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 599. 
Galindo, 18354, pp. 548, 549. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 29 
Spinden 1913, p. Sh and table 1. 

Both Stele 12 and 10 seem to have been discovered by Galindo; at least 
he was the first to note their occurrence: “On neighboring hills stand, one 
to the east [Stela 12] and the other to the west [Stela 10] of the city, two 
obelisks, containing only hieroglyphics in squares; these obelisks, like the 
generality of those in the city, are painted red, and are thicker and broader 
at the top than at the bottom.”* He describes Stela 12 as fallen and broken, 
even in his time.’ 

Stela 12 is 3.25 meters high, 61 cm. wide, and 52 cm. thick. Originally 
it stood upon an artificially leveled terrace 8 meters long by 5 meters wide® 
on the western slope of the mountain, about 2.5 kilometers east of the Main 
Structure at Group 3. (See plate 3.) The writer first examined this monu- 


1This elevation was taken from Gordon’s unpublished notes in the Peabody Museum. 


2For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 
3Galindo, 18354, pp. 548, 549. 4Jbid., 1834, Appendix XI, p. 599. 5Tbid., p. 599. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 133 


ment in 1910, but was then unable to find the bottom half. In 1915, how- 
ever, all pieces except the very top—a fragment which must have been 
about 25 cm. high, and which Galindo also reports as missing in 1834— 
were examined, and the date determined for the first time. 

All four sides are inscribed with glyphs, which still retain much of their 
original coating of red paint.1 This has given rise to the name Piedra 
Pintada—painted stone—by which the monument is known locally. On 
the basis of the arrangement of the design, Stela 12 may be referred to 
Class 3. 

A line drawn from Stela 12 to Stela 10, the western Piedra Pintada, 
similarly located on the summit of a hill 7 kilometers west of Stela 12, passes 
across the southern end of the Acropolis at the Main Structure, bearing 
N. 86° 46’ W. (magnetic).? (See plate 3.) 

Whether this is the result of intention or of chance, it is, of course, 
impossible to say, although it is interesting to note in this connection that 
both Stele 10 and 12 antedate the earliest monument? which may be regarded 
as being surely in situ at the Main Structure, and consequently they might 
have had something to do with the location of the Acropolis in its present 
position, perhaps in determining a certain line of sight of especial astro- 
nomical or ceremonial importance at the time. 

At the suggestion of Prof. R. W. Willson, of the Harvard Astronomical 
Department, certain observations were made on Stela Io as observed from 
Stela 12, namely, (1) the angle of Stela 10 above the valley floor, taken at 
the river-level at the base of the Main Structure; (2) the compass-bearing of 
Stela 10 from Stela 12; and (3) the bearing of the sun at the instant of setting 
on any given day. ‘These readings were taken just before and at sunset on 
March 8, 1916, and were turned over to Professor Willson, who has placed 
the following statement concerning them in the writer’s hands: 


“Tf, as you say, the two stelz are at about the same height above the river, 
namely, 450’ [137 meters],* the western column being a little higher, I find from 
your observations that the true bearing of the western (Stela 10) from the 
eastern (Stela 12) is N. 81° 47’ W. 

“Accepting this as the true bearing, the sun, as seen from Stela 12, would set 
behind Stela 10, 20.3 days after the vernal equinox and 20.6 days before the autumnal 
equinox (7. ¢., April 9 and September Io of the present year, 1916 (Gregorian 
Calendar). 

“From Mr. Carpenter’s observation of the magnetic bearing of Stela 10, W. 
4°25’ N., and the true bearing, N. 81° 47’, we find the present magnetic declination 
to be 3° 48’ east of north. 

“Gordon gives the magnetic bearing of this line as N. 86° 46’ W. and the 
declination 6° E., which makes the true bearing N. 80° 46’ W., which would give for 











1S0 far as known, all Maya inscriptions were originally painted red, although other subjects, such as the human 
figure, and its elaborate clothing, plumed head-dresses, jaguar-skin capes, and the like, appear in a variety of colors, 
including several other shades of red, brown, yellow, blue, green, and black. 

2The magnetic declination of Copan is 6° east. See Gordon, 1896, p. 29. 

3Stela 1, the date of which is 9.11.15.0.0. See p. 161. 

4Gordon’s notes in the Peabody Museum give these elevations as Stela 10, 228 meters, and Stela 12, 188.6 
meters above the level of the Great Plaza at the Main Structure. 


134 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


the date of sunset behind Stela 10, 23 days after the vernal and 23 days before the 
autumnal equinox.’”? 

Gordon’s reading gives the date of the sun setting behind Stela 10 as 
seen from Stela 12 as three days later in the spring, z. ¢.,on April 12, and three 
days earlier in the fall, 7. ¢., September 7, a fairly close agreement with the 
readings obtained in 1916. 

As yet we know too little about the exact correlation of the Old Empire 
chronology with our own to name the Maya equivalents of April 9-12 and 
September 7-10, during the Old Empire, and moreover, since the Maya 
only used a 365-day year, these days were continually shifting. In Bishop 
Landa’s time the Maya year began with July 26 (N. S.), 2. ¢., o Pop fell on 
July 26;? and on this basis of correlation these eight possible dates were 
17 Mac, 18 Mac, 29 Mac, or o Kankin; or 3 Zip, 4 Zip, 5 Zip, or 6 Zip 
of the Maya year, none of which, however, appears on either monument, 
although the Initial Series terminal date on Stela 12 (13 Mac) is only 4 
days earlier than the first of these. 

Although the above results are unsatisfactory, the writer believes these 
two monuments may yet be found to record important and recoverable 
astronomical data, possibly even sufficient to permit an exact correlation of 
Maya and Givers chronology.’ 

The upper part of Stela 12, a piece about 25 cm. long, as already men- 
tioned, is missing. The front of this fragment presented the upper half of 
the Initial Series introducing glyph, the lower half of which is shown in plate 
17. The next glyph, a3, plate 17, is effaced; it doubtless recorded “9 cycles.” 
Fortunately the katun coefficient, B3a, is one of the clearest glyphs in the 
entire inscription, being unmistakably 10, which restricts the range of 
possible dates for this Initial Series to a definite 20-year period in the Long 
Count. 

Although the remaining terms of this number, the tun, uinal, and kin 
coefficients in A4a, B4a, and asa respectively are sufficiently clear, their forms 
are so unusual that it is better to -= attempt first to identify the Initial 
Series terminal date recorded in B5,A9. This is 6 Ahau 13 ?, all being 
perfectly clear but the month-sign. 

The next point is to determine at what places in Katun 10 the day 6 
Ahau could have had a month coefficient of 13. Referring to Goodman’s 
tables, it will be found that there are only seven places where these condi- 
tions are fulfilled, as follows: 


g.10. 2.13.0 °6 Ahau 13 Zac 9.10.15. 0.0 6 Ahau 13 Mac 
9.10. 6. 6.0 6 Ahau 13 Zip g.10.18.11.0 6 Ahau 13 Tzec 
910%-721-0 .6 Ahad Trax 9.10.19. 6.0 6 Ahau 13 Cumhu 


g.10.10.12.0 6 Ahau 13 Mo'! 





1This extract is from a letter written under date of November 29, 1916. 

2Landa says the Maya year began on July 16, but as he wrote between 1561 and 1566, the Old Style was still 
in use, and in order to reduce this reading to its present equivalent it is necessary to add 10 days, July 16 of his 
time being July 26 to-day. 

°This problem of the exact correlation of Maya and Christian chronology will be found reviewed in Appendix I. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 135 


A further inspection of the partially destroyed month-glyph in ao dis- 


aie ey 


closes the fact that its superfix is of this form Gl 


\ 
Ens 


remnant with the signs for the seven months in the above dates, or indeed 
with the signs for all the other divisions of the year, shows that it could 
hardly have been other than the sign for Mac; indeed, this particular superfix 
is the essential and only constant element of the sign for Mac. 

On the basis of this resemblance alone we are probably justified in 
accepting the fifth value above, 7. ¢., 9.10.15.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Mac, as the date 
of this Initial Series, but when we find further that this date is the only one 
of the seven here possible which ends a hotun or even a tun in the Long 
Count, the chances in its favor are enormously increased; and finally, as will 
appear later, when it is found that the closing date on this monument is exactly 
the same as the final dates on Stele 2, 3, 13, and 23, and further, that the Initial 
Series itself is probably the same as the Initial Series of Stela 2, probability 
virtually becomes a certainty. 

It may be objected that a4a, B4a, and asa bear little resemblance to 
known forms for 15, 0, and o respectively. But asa can be nothing but o, 
since the day-sign in Bsb is surely Ahau;? and furthermore, when the kin 
coefficient is 0, the uinal coefficient is almost invariably the same.’ Finally, 
the tun coefficient in a4a is surely 10 or above, being composed of the death’s 
head, 10, and a superfix. In view of the probable accuracy of the reading 
suggested, this sign must stand for the number 15. The superfix is a 
flattened oval in which two parallel horizontal lines appear very clearly. @) 
Since the whole glyph must mean 15 tuns, these lines may be explained & > 
in one of two ways only. Either they are the outlines of a single bar, 5, or 
else they are parts of the interior lines of the tun-sign, which would then 
make this glyph the regular head-variant for 15 (see Bowditch, 1910, plate 17, 
and Morley, 1915, figure 53 b-e). 

1The only constant ele- 
ment in the sign for Mac 
would appear to have been 
the superfix, and even this 
is wanting in the next to 
last variant on the right from Aguas Calientes. (See plate 1.) 

The first and second examples above, from Tikal, Altar 5 and Copan, Altar W, respectively, are the commonest 
form—a grotesque head surmounted by the characteristic superfx. The third and fourth, from Piedras Negras, 
Stela 16, and Naranjo, Stela 14, respectively, have an entirely different main element in which an oval is the most 


conspicuous feature, but with the same superfix as in the first two. The fifth and sixth variants, both from Yax- 
chilan, Lintels 33 and 43 respectively, are again different, though the superfixial element still remains the same 
in each. 

The seventh variant, from Stela 1 at Aguas Calientes, does not have this characteristic superfix, but on the 
contrary resembles very closely the forms for Mac found in the Dresden Codex, one of which from p. 50 of that 
manuscript is shown as the last variant above. Both forms have the same kind of a subfix—a comb-like element— 
and both the same kind of a main element, apparently a variant of the sign for Imix. 

In general, however, the superfix appearing in the first six examples above may be said to be the determining 
characteristic of this glyph, and its presence in agd on Stela 12 establishes, practically beyond doubt, the identity 
of this glyph as a sign for Mac. For other examples of the sign for Mac, see Appendix X, and also Bowditch, igto, 
plates 8 and to. 

2When the day-sign of any date is Ahau, the kin coefficient can only be o. See Morley, 1915, p. 77. 

3That is to say, when a day Ahau was recorded in the inscriptions, it almost always stood at the end of an even 
tun, hotun, lahuntun, or katun of the Long Count, and not at the ends of the intermediate uinals. A few cases 
of the latter, however, are known, as, for example, the Initial Series of Stela 1 (p. 162) and the Initial Series of Stela A 


(pa 220). 


=. A comparison of this 


= 











136 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The former explanation involves an entirely new feature in Maya 
notation, namely, that under certain conditions a bar-and-dot numeral could 
be combined with a head-variant numeral, making a composite numeral. 
The cases where such combinations occur have been exhaustively presented 
under the East Altar of Stela 5 (see pp. 166-170) and their discussion will not 
be anticipated here. Suffice it to say in the present connection that A4a, 
explained on either basis, stands for the number 15; and further that, all 
things considered, it is perfectly safe to accept 9.10.15.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Mac as 
the Initial Series of Stela 12. Before attempting to decide whether or not 
this was the contemporaneous date of the monument, however, let us con- 
tinue the inspection of the text. 

On one of the narrow faces at c10, p11 (plate 17, four glyphs at bottom) 
is the following Period Ending date: “12 Ahau 8 Ceh, End of Katun 11”: 


cro 12 Ahau 


DIO 8 Ceh 
Cll End of 
DII Katun I1 


Although the line of fracture passes through c10, p11, this reading is 
perfectly clear. We have, then, on Stela 12, the record of two successive 
hotuns in the Long Count, 9.10.15.0.0 and 9.11.0.0.0. Ordinarily, indeed 
in the very great majority of cases, the final date on a monument corresponds 
with the date of its erection or formal dedication, and if this general rule 
applies to Stela 12, it may be referred to the end of Katun 11 without further 
question. Unfortunately there is present another factor tending to com- 
plicate the question and possibly to abrogate the general rule in this con- 
nection. However, since this matter can not be adequately presented until 
the other six monuments, which may record the date 9.11.0.0.0, have been 
described, further discussion of Stela 12 and its date will be deferred until 
later. (See pp. 159-161.) 

STELA 2. 


Provenance: At the southern base of the L-shaped extension on the 
north side of Mound ro of the Acropolis at the Main 
Structure. (See plate 6.) 
Date: g.10.15.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Mac. 
9.11. 0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh.! 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 18. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 103, a. 
(b) drawing: plate 18. 
Maudslay bid. plates 101 and 102 (1o1 front only). 
References: Bowditch, 1910 pp. 186, 196. 
Gordon, 1896, insert after plate 1. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902 vol. I of text, p. 66. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 157-159, 164, and table 1. 
Stephens 1841, vol. 1, p. 134. 


Stela 2 is lying at the southern base of the L-shaped extension of 
Mound to in a small court into which the passageway between Mounds 9 
and 10 emerges. It is 3.81 meters long, 81 cm. wide, and 56 cm. thick. A 











1For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 137 


human figure is sculptured on the front, the back and sides being inscribed 
with glyphs. On the basis of the arrangement of the design it may be assigned 
to Class 4. 

The Initial Series is recorded on the back, the Initial Series introducing 
glyph appearing in al-B2.. The cycle-sign and coefficient in a3 are entirely 
effaced; the latter (a3a) was doubtless 9. The katun coefficient is partially 
effaced, though fortunately enough remains to show that it was the death’s 
head, 7. ¢., the numeral Io. 

The tun-sign and coefficient in a4 are again entirely effaced, and the 
uinal coefficient in B4a almost so. The uinal-sign (B4d) is the full-figure 
variant, found also on Stela 12 in the corresponding position (see plate 17, 
B4D), and also on Stele 24 and 15. 

The kin-sign and coefficient and the day-sign and coefficient, as and Bs 
respectively, are very clear. As the latter is surely 6 Ahau, the former must 
be o kins. Quite irregularly this sign for o seems to have as its essential 
element the fleshless lower jaw, usually the determining characteristic 
of the head for 10. That this el glyph can only be o, however, has just 
been explained, and we may con clude, therefore, that the fleshless lower 
jaw sometimes stands for 0 as well as for Io. 

The only other places known where this element has this value are 
on Stele 19 and 3 here at Copan, which also date either from 9.11.0.0.0 or 
very near thereto. In Stela 19, the kin coefficient, like that of Stela 2, 
also has the fleshless lower [awe / eee oa and since its day-sign is Age 
distinctly Ahau, this element can fe il | only have the value o as here on 
Stela 2. Soll 

The other example of this use of the fleshless lower jaw for 0 is found on 
Stela 3. Here the Initial Series terminal date is very clearly 12 Ahau 8 Ceh, 
and although the Initial Series number itself is partially effaced, the record 
of an “End of Katun 11” after the Initial Series terminal date indicates that 
this 12 Ahau 8 Ceh could have been none other than g.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 
8 Ceh. Now, on Stela 3 (plate 19, a, a3a u. h.), the tun coefficient of the Initial 
Series number (° Cal has the same fleshless lower jaw as in the other two 
examples just Yi >” cited, and the accompanying calculations show that it 
also couldonly <= have stood for o. 

It seems safe to conclude, therefore, from the foregoing erence that 
on these three monuments at es, the fleshless lower jaw was used to denote 
o instead of 10. This unusual practice, however, does not appear to have 
prevailed at any other Maya city, and here at Copan only in the case of these 
three monuments, all of which date from the same hotun or two consecutive 
ones; and it is much more likely to have been due to the influence of a single 
sculptor, the idiosyncracy of one priest, rather than to any fundamental 
duality in the meaning and significance of this element. 

Returning to our text in plate 18, the Supplementary Series will be 
found following the day of the Initial Series terminal date, 7. ¢., at Ac—B7a u. h., 


y 


@ 





138 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


the latter sign being Glyph A of the Supplementary Series, here shown 
with a coefficient of to. Unfortunately, the next glyph resem- O 

bles none of the known forms for the month-signs and it has, a 
moreover, a coefficient of 9: As the month coefficient correspond- © 

ing to any day Ahau can only be 3, 8, 13, or 18, it is probable that the sign 
in B7a 1. h. is not the month-sign of the Initial Series terminal date. Although 
a slight digression will here be necessary to prove this point, it seems best to 
introduce the matter at this time. 

The usual position of the month-sign in Initial Series terminal dates is 
immediately following the last glyph of the Supplementary Series, for which, 
on the basis of this regularity, the writer at one time suggested the name 
“‘month-sign indicator,’ but which is now generally known as Glyph A of 
the Supplementary Series.’ If it is not found here, it usually follows the day 
of the Initial Series terminal date, wherever that may be. In a very few 
texts the month-sign of the Initial Series terminal date is suppressed alto- 
gether, and there is recorded in its place a glyph unlike any of the known 
month-signs, but which has a coefficient. This last seems to be the case here 
on Stela 2. 


O 


O 


a 
Fic. 23.—Glyphs used in place of the month-signs of the Initial Series terminal dates on: a, Copan, Stela 2; d, 
Copan, Stela 3; c, Copan, Altar H’; d, Yaxchilan, Stela 1; ¢, Yaxchilan, Stela 11; f, Yaxchilan, Lintel 29. 





Figure 23, a, is the sign immediately following Glyph A of the Supple- 
mentary Series on Stela 2. This sign is a grotesque head with a coefficient 9, 
and can not be the month-sign of the Initial Series terminal date, as we have 
seen. The second example, figure 23, b, is from Stela 3, also here at Copan, 
where it occurs immediately after Glyph A of the Supplementary Series, 
the month-sign of the Initial Series terminal date again being suppressed, as 
in the case of Stela 2. Here again both the grotesque head and its coefficient 
are the same. A third possible case on Altar H’, also here at Copan, is shown 
in figure 23, c. The grotesque head appears to be the same and the coefficient 
is again 9, but this glyph does not replace the month-sign, which occurs in 
its regular position after Glyph A of the Supplementary Series, but it follows 
the day of the Initial Series terminal date, for which reason it is offered only 
as a doubtful case in the present connection. 

The only other parallel elsewhere of which the writer is aware occurs 
at Yaxchilan (see plate 1) on Stele 1 and 11 and Lintel 29, figure 23, d, ¢, and f, 
respectively. In these three cases the glyphs replacing the month-signs of the 
Initial Series terminal dates occur immediately after their respective Glyphs 





'The month-sign of the Initial Series terminal date follows Glyph A of the Supplementary Series, the so-called 
“month-sign indicator,” in about four out of every five Initial Series; any other position, therefore, is exceptional 
(Morley, 1916, p. 368, note 1). 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 139 


A of their corresponding Supplementary Series, the month-signs again 
being suppressed. In all three, both the main signs (each containing three 
small circles), and the coefficients are the same, the latter being 6. Although 
both coefficient and glyph differ from the one at Copan, the use appears to be 
so similar at both places that even although the meanings of these passages 
are unknown the parallel appears complete. 

The foregoing was introduced to show that the glyph recorded after 
Glyph A of the Supplementary Series on Stela 2, 7. ¢., B7a |. h., was not the 
month-sign of the Initial Series terminal date, and furthermore, that the 
month-sign is probably suppressed in this inscription as in the case of Stela 3. 
Let us gather together, therefore, the data surely deciphered in connection 
with this date: 

A1-B2 _ Initial Series introducing glyph 


A3 Effaced, doubtiess 9 cycles 
B3 10 katuns 

A4 Effaced 

B4 ? uinals 

AS o kins 

BS 6 Ahau 


As the day 6 Ahau occurred 27 times in Katun 10, before attempting to 
decide between these 27 possibilities, it is best to continue the examination 
of our text. 

On the west side of Stela 2 at cs, c7a, is recorded the Period Ending date 
““y2 Ahau 8 Ceh End of Katun 11”’ as follows: 


csb 12 Ahau 
c6éa 8Ceh 
c6b~—sC End of 


c7a =Katun ti 


which may be transcribed into its corresponding Initial Series thus: 9.11.0.0.0 
12 Ahau 8 Ceh.t’ Maudslay’s drawing of this text has two serious errors. 
First, the day coefficient (csb) is shown as 13 (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 102, 
glyph 34, right half), while in the original it is very clearly 12 (see plate 18), 
the middle dot being noticeably smaller and without decoration; and second, 
the katun coefficient (c7a) is shown as 13 (2bid., Glyph 36 left half), whereas 
in the original it is unmistakably 11, the two outside dots being smaller than 
the middle one, and again without decoration.’ 

These two errors, of course, materially change the resulting date here 


and have led Bowditch to misread this Period Ending as 9.13.0.10.0 13 Ahau 
8 Ceh. 


“On Stela 2 of Copan we find in FS [csb here] 13 Ahau with a knot between the 
day and the number... . . . . On E6 [céa here] we have 8 Ceh and on £7 [c7a 
here] we find the katun glyph with 13 and no ‘ending’ sign. 13 Ahau 8 Ceh is 
g.13.0.10.0, while on F6[c6d here] is the glyph given on plate 19, Hand Signs No. 4.’” 











1For transcribing Period Ending dates into their corresponding Initial Series, see Morley, 1915, pp. 222-233. 

2Both the day and katun coefficients in this text are very unusual. Where plain dots and ornamented ones 
both occur in the same number, the former are almost always numerical and the latter ornamental. The reverse 
is true here, however. 

3See Bowditch, 1910, p. 186. 


140 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


So far as the writer is aware, the ends of uinals are never recorded 
as Period Ending dates, and for this reason alone, if for no other, the reading 
9.13.0.10.0 13 Ahau 8 Ceh is open to serious question. Its rejection, however, 
rests on firmer grounds, as we have already seen, and there is no doubt but 
that the same hotun-ending is recorded here as that on the corresponding 
side of Stela 12, namely, 9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh. 

But there are other resemblances between the inscriptions on Stele 12 
and 2, as the following comparison will show: 


Stela 2. Stela 12. 
B3a Katun coefficient 10, head-variant numeral B3a_ the same 
B4D Uinal-sign represented as a full-figure variant B4b the same 
Asb Kin-sign with banded head-dress Asb_ the same 
BS 6 Ahau, head-variant numeral and profile head Bs the same 

day-sign 
B7a.u. h. Glyph A of the Supplementary Series with a coefh- Bg the same 
cient of 10 
Csb 12 Ahau Cro the same 
c6a 8 Ceh Dio the same 
c6b End of cir the same 
c7a Katun II Dir the same 


Even such details as the ending-signs, 7. ¢., cob and c11 respectively, and 
the coefficients of Glyph A of the Supplementary Series, 7. ¢., B7a u. h., and 
Bg, respectively, are identical in both texts. But we have already seen that 
the Initial Series of Stela 12 records the date 9.10.15.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Mac, and 
since the Initial Series of Stela 2 supports this reading so far as it goes, it 
seems not unlikely, in view of these other close similarities, that this was also 
the Initial Series of Stela 2. 

As to which of the two dates recorded on Stela 2, 7. ¢., 9.10.15.0.0 and 
9.11.0.0.0, was its contemporaneous date, further discussion of this point 
will be deferred until after the descriptions of Stele 10, 19, 23, 13, and 3. The 
inscription on Stela 2 1s composed of 19+11+11=41 glyph-blocks, the 
Initial Series introducing glyph occupying the space of 4 glyph-blocks. 

An interesting side-light on technical limitations in stone carving at 
Copan is afforded by this monument. In the Initial Series introducing glyph, 
just to the left and a little below the variable central element, there appears 
a large circle without interior decoration. (See plate 18.) In the original 
this is a large inclusion of harder volcanic rock, which the ancient sculptors 
found themselves unable to carve, probably because their chisels were made 
of the same material or of one no harder. 

The best they were able to accomplish in this direction was to reduce 
the inclusion so that it was flush with the face of the stela; and no attempt 
appears to have been made to carry the design across its refractory surface. 
On the contrary, the inclusion appears to have influenced the design. The 
element to the right and slightly above it is a head facing to the right. Further 
examination shows this head is the variable element of the Initial Series 
introducing glyph. So far as the writer knows, this is the only instance on 
record of a head in this position facing to the right, all others facing to the left. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. I4I 


The reason for this departure from the regular practice would appear to 
have been due to the presence of this inclusion, which would have seriously 
distorted the proportions of a head facing to the left. As arranged here, 
however, the inclusion may conceivably be a part of the ear-plug; in short, 
it has directly coerced the arrangement of the subject-matter. 

Stela 2 is the first monument since Stela P which represents the human 
figure, and it is interesting to note in this connection that in the 25 or 30 
years which elapsed since the erection of the latter little progress had been 
achieved in handling this difficult subject. Says Spinden, in describing this 
monument: 


“Stela 2 is another slender stela, although the slenderness 1s not so marked 
as in the preceding one (Stela P). The body maintains the same pose except that 
the forearms are not held nearly so vertical.!’ The details of dress are remarkably 
similar, although in general somewhat more complicated. ‘The torso is broader and 
the legs shorter and more muscular. ‘The relief is somewhat higher than on Stela 
P, but is hardly less angular. Both of these stel# show the outlines of the shoulders 
and waist clearly.’’” 


STELA, 10; 


Provenance: On the summit of a hill 4.5 kilometers west of the Main 
Structure at Group 12, 228 meters above the level 
of the Great Plaza.’ (See plate 3.) 


Date: g.10.19.13.0 3 Ahau 8 Yaxkin. 
Text, drawing: plate 15, a. 

Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 111. 
References: Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 599. 


Galindo, 18354, pp. 548, 549. 

Gordon, 1896, p. 29. 

Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 16, 68. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 160, 164, and table 1. 

Stela ro lies flat on the ground on the summit of a hill about 4.5 kilometers 
west of the Main Structure, at Group 12, 228 meters above the level of the 
Great Plaza, and commands a beautiful view of the valley. The crest of the 
hill has been leveled off, and a retaining-wall of rough-laid stones built 
along the edges makes a sort of platform of the top. The monument is 2.98 
meters long, 66 cm. wide, and 43 cm. thick. All four sides are covered with 
glyphs, in which respect it belongs to the same class, 3, as Stele 20, 15, 
21, 9, and 12. It was painted red, and much of the coloring matter still 
adheres to the surface of the stone; hence the name Piedra Pintada, by 
which the monument is known locally. It was first reported by Galindo. 

There is an Initial Series introducing glyph on the north side, a1,‘ followed 
by an Initial Series at a2a—a4a, a9. Unfortunately the top glyph on the 





1The position of the forearms of the human figures on the Copan stele is one of the surest criteria of age. 
In the earlier stela showing the human figure the forearm is held almost vertical, later it gradually drops until as 
here it is less than 45° with the horizontal. _ Finally, in the Great Period, it is held horizontally in a perfectly natural 
and easy position. See Spinden, 1913, p. 24. 

2 Spinden, 1913, p. 157. 

3This elevation was taken from Gordon’s unpublished notes in the Peabody Museum. 

4The opening glyph in Maudslay’s drawing (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 111). 


142 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


opposite side (D1)! is entirely effaced, and it is impossible to tell whether it 
had been an Initial Series introducing glyph or not. 

Maudslay’s drawing of this Initial Series is extremely faulty; indeed, 
it is the most inaccurate of all his reproductions of the Copan inscriptions. 
In the first place, the cycle coefficient in a2a u. h. is shown with a clasped 
hand on the lower jaw, which would signify 0 cycles. A study of the original, 
however, failed altogether to establish the presence of this element. On the 
contrary, the dots of the head for 9 could be clearly distinguished, the dots 
not only being double outlined, but also cross-hatched. 

‘His next error is in the katun coefficient (a2) u. h.), which he shows as 
15, 1. ¢., as 3 bars, whereas the original has but 2 bars. This error doubtless 
arose ikon his mistaking the upper part of the head-variant representing 
the katun fora bar. The reading 10, however, is quite clearinthe original. His 
drawing of the tun coefficient (a3a u. h.) while not actually inaccurate, 1s far 
from clear. Although the fleshless lower jaw of the head for 10 appears very 
clearly, he does not show the small double-outlined and cross-hatched dot 
denoting 9, of exactly the same type as those in the cycle coefficient just 
above. The tun coefficient, therefore is unmistakably 19. 

The uinal coefficient (a3) u. h.) as drawn by Maudslay is obviously 
incorrect. It is 18, an impossible value for the coefficient of the second 
period.?, An examination of.the original, moreover, shows that it is 13. 
Maudslay fell into the same error here as he did in the case of the katun 
coefficient, namely, in identifying the upper part of the period-glyph as a 
bar, giving 18 instead of 13. The two upper bars appear like this Gaz), 
whereas the upper part of the uinal head is rounding and lacks the four 
slanting interior lines. The kin coefficient (a4a u. h.) is o, and the Initial 
Series terminal date (a9), 3 Ahau 8 Yaxkin. Fortunately, the latter is very 
clear both in the Maudslay drawing and the original, and proved a valu- 
able check in the final decipherment of this date. The Initial Series here 
recorded, therefore, is 9.10.19.13.0 3 Ahau 8 Yaxkin, as follows: 

Ar Initial Series introducing glyph 
Aza sg: cycles 

A2b 10 katuns 

A3a_ 1g tuns 

A3b 13: ulnals 

Aga ~—s Oo kins 

Aga 3 Ahau 

Agb = 8 -_Yaxkin 

In addition to the Initial Series, there are a few other recognizable glyphs 
in the text, though of unknown meaning. cs* would appear to be a day-sign, 
perhaps Ahau, although if so its coefficient can not be 18.4 p3° is the variant 





1Glyph 29, Maudslay’s numeration (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 111). 

°There are 18 uinals in 1 tun the period next higher, but as 1 tun is never recorded as 18 uinals in the inscrip- 
tions, 18 is an impossible value for the uinal coeficient. (See Morley, 1915, p. 110.) Bowditch (1910, pp. 41, 42) 
notes an apparent exception in the Dresden Codex, where in a series of numbers on pp. 71-73, the number 390, 
1. ¢., 1.1.10, 1s written 19.10, that is, 19 uinals and 10 kins. 

3Gly ah 24, Maudslay’s numeration (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 111). 

*The day coefficients can only be one of the numbers 1 to 13 inclusive. See Morley, 1915, p. 41. If this 
glyph is a month-sign, the coefficient 18 would be possible. 

5Glyph 31, Maudslay’s numeration (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 111). 





PLATE 16 


MORLEY. 








MORLEY. 


PLATE 16 





Stela 19. Inscription on the front. Drawn from the original. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 143 


of the tun-sign used in hotun-ending declarations. As its coefficient is 
effaced, it is barely possible a hotun-ending may have been recorded here. 
El, Fl, and F2! appear to record a Secondary Series, although the writer has 
been unable to connect it with the Initial Series. 

The first glyph (£1 u. h.) looks like 5 kins and the next (£11. h.) may be 
the day-sign Akbal. The next (Fi u. h.) iso ?, and the next (F11. h.) 8 uinals. 
There follows in the next glyph but one (F2) a sign which may be 12 Ix, 
though both the coefficient and the day-sign are doubtful. 

Whether or not pi was an Initial Series introducing glyph makes no 
difference in the total number of glyph-blocks in this text, since the Initial 
Series introducing glyph on the other side occupies the space of but one 
glyph-block. This makes 9+20+9+20=58 glyph-blocks for the entire 
inscription. 

The possibility that Stela 10 together with Stela 12 may have defined 
a certain line of sight which had to do with the location of the Acropolis in 
its present position has already been pointed out in connection with Stela 12. 
If Piofessor Willson’s suggestion should be correct that these two monuments 
were used in observing the setting of the sun, Stela 12, the eastern one, must 
have been the point of observation, and Stela 10 the object observed, since 
of the two, Stela 10 is 40 meters higher above the valley than Stela 12, and, 
moreover, is the only one of the two which stands out against the horizon. 

Altars J’ and K’, two archaic sculptures already described (p. 56) 
were found in the foundations of Stela to. ‘There is nothing, however, to 
indicate their original provenance. 


STELA Ig. 


Provenance: Inasmal valley just west of Hacienda Grande at Group 
13, 5.5 kilometers west of the Main Structure and 
1 kilometer west of Stelato. (See plate 3 and fig- 
ure 24.) YRAF Tie 

Date: g.10.19.15.0 4 Ahau 8 Chen. 

Text, (a) photograph: plate 16. 

(b) drawing: plate 16 and figure 25. 
Reference: Gordon, 1898), map facing p. 141. 


OW tee 


Stela 19 is 3.17 meters long, 63 cm. wide, and 43 cm. thick. It probably 
is the same monument as the “stela within walled enclosure” shown by 
Gordon in his map of the Copan Valley, located about 1 kilometer west 
of Stela 10,’ although no further reference to it is found in any of the Pea- 
body Museum publications. It was “rediscovered” by Spinden in 1914 
and the following analysis of the inscription is based upon the writer’s study 
of the original in 1915. 

Stela 19 is now broken in two pieces which lie on an artificially leveled 
hill in a little valley just west of Hacienda Grande, and 5.5 kilometers west 
of the Main Structure. There seems to have been quite a large settlement 
here. Mounds, small plazas, and remains of stone walls fill the valley, 





1Glyphs 38, 39, and 41, Maudslay’s numeration (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 111.) 
2See Gordon 1898), map facing p. 141. 


144 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


extending both north and south of the particular plaza where this stela was 
found for perhaps half a kilometer. 

The stela itself and the associated altars were found about the middle 
of the group in the largest plaza (see figure 24), and here doubtless was the 
center of the community. With the 
exception of Stele 13 and 23, to be 
presented next, Stela 19 is the most 
distant of all the monuments from the 
Main Structure. 

The inscription is presented on 
all four sides, and on the basis of this 
arrangement it may be assigned to 
Class 3. Only one side has an Initial} 
Series, the introducing glyph of which * °, 
(ai—B2) is of extraordinary form. (See * 1; 
plate 16.) The trinal superfix and sub- 
fix are both present, as well as the vari- 
able central element, which is appar- 
ently a human figure. The “tun” 
sign and comb-like lateral appendages, 
however, are almost entirely obscured 
by two twining serpents, whose gro- 
tesque heads with widely extended 
jaws occupy the greater part of the 
glyph-block. This latter feature, so 
far as the writer knows, is unique 
in the whole Corpus Inscriptionum 
Mayarum. | 

The cycle-sign and coefficient ap- eae 
pear in aA3,B3. The latter is clearly 9, 16. 24——Map of central mound of Groupsias 
there being one large double-outlined, ecce pre tia me 
cross-hatched dot on the lower part of 
the face. The katun coefficient (a4) is 10, the death’s head being perfectly 
clear. 

The tun coefficient (As) is very clearly 19, and the uinal coefficient (46), 
15. The line of fracture runs through the kin coefficient (a7), which is 
partially effaced. ‘The lower part of this head, however, shows the fleshless 
lower jaw, which would ordinarily indicate the number to. 

The day-sign of the Initial Series terminal date should be recorded at 
As, but even in spite of the effaced condition of this glyph it is clear that it 
never was a day-sign. Following through the remaining glyphs on the front, 
the last, aio, is Glyph B of the Supplementary Series. 

Glyph A of the Supplementary Series (c1) is found on the top of one of 
the sides and is shown in figure 25, a, cl, and immediately following this is 
the day of the Initial Series terminal date (c2) 4 Ahau. Since the day-sign 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 145 


is Ahau, the kin coefficient in a7 must be o and not 10, as first deciphered. 
This is one of the cases already cited in connection with Stela 2, where the 
fleshless lower jaw has the value of o instead of 10, as usual. The record of 
the day-sign of the Initial Series 
terminal date after Glyph A of 
the Supplementary Series in this 
text, and not after the kin-sign, 
as is usually the case, has a par- 
allel in Stela 13, the next monu- 
ment but one in this group to 
be described, and one moreover 
which records a date only 60 
days later than the Initial Se- 
ries of Stela ek : Fic. 25.—a, Part of inscription on side of Stela 19. Altars 
The next glyph in figure 25; associated with Stela 19: 3, c, fragments of in- 
a(c3), should record the month of puede ia etek a 
the Initial Series terminal date, but it is too effaced to decipher. Gather- 
ing together the above data, it will be found that the Initial Series 
g.10.19.15.0 4 Ahau 8 Chen 1s recorded on Stela 19 as follows: 





A1-B2__ Initial Series introducing glyph 
A3,B3 9 cycles 

A4,B4 10 katuns 

As,B5 19 tuns 

A6,B6 15 uinals 

A7,B7. +O kins 

C2 4 Ahau 

G3 (8 Chen) ? 


Although there are no other decipherable glyphs on Stela 1g itself, its 
inscription was probably continued on the periphery of the altar originally 
associated with it. During his visit to Hacienda Grande in April 1915, the 
writer discovered two fragments of a round altar about 30 meters north of 
Stela 19 and in the same plaza. (See figures 24 and 25, b and c.) 

These two fragments, though not contiguous, give sufficient of the cir- 
cumference to show that the altar was originally 1 meter in diameter and 
about 30 cm. in height. Judging from the size of the preserved glyph- 
blocks, if the glyph band extended clear around the periphery, there were 13 
glyph-blocks in all. 

In view of its extremely fragmentary condition, it must be considered a 
rare piece of good fortune, therefore, that of the only five glyphs recovered 
either in whole or in part, about a third of the original inscription, two 
clearly record the Initial Series terminal date of Stela 19, namely, 4 Ahau 
8 Chen. (See figure 25, b, B1, c1.) Although the upper part of this date is 
missing, it is perfectly clear as deciphered, and since the Initial Series on 
Stela 19 is 9.10.19.15.0 4 Ahau 8 Chen, this Calendar Round date doubtless 
had the same position in the Long Count. 


146 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Unfortunately the rest of the text is missing. The writer believes, 
however, that it was probably continued from this date 4 Ahau 8 Chen by 
a Secondary Series composed of 3.0 to 9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh, which would 
bring the text forward to the nearest hotun-ending. 

A parallel case would be that of Stela E and its altar, already presented, 
although in this case the hotun-ending date is preserved and the date from 
which the count starts is effaced. On the altar of Stela 19 the positions are 
just reversed, the starting-date being preserved and the hotun-ending miss- 
ing. Another parallel will be found in the case of Stela I and its altar. (See 
pp. 179, 182.) 

We have, then, on Stela 19, the record of a date 9.10.19.15.0, which was 
3.0 (60 days) before the end of the current hotun, 9.11.0.0.0, and 2.0 (40 
days) after the Initial Series of Stela 10, 2. ¢., 9.10.19.13.0. And on the 
associated altar we have the same date as the Initial Series terminal date on 
the stela. This latter date, the writer believes, was brought forward to 
9:11.0.0.0 by glyphs on the pieces now missing. 

A summary of the combined texts follows: 


Stela 1g A1-B7,C1 9.10.19.15.0 4 Ahau 8 (Chen) 
Altar Br, Cr g.10.19.15.0 4 Ahau8 Chen 
3.0 missing 
(9.11. 0. 0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh) missing 

There are 17+10+20+10=57 glyph-blocks on the stela and 13 on the 
altar, making a total of 70 for the entire text. The Initial Series introducing 
glyph occupies the space of 4 glyph-blocks. 

In addition to the round altar just described, Stela 19 seems to have 
had another of very unusual shape. (See figures 24 and 25,d.) This is also 
round, but has four deep grooves cut in the periphery 90° apart. There is a 
depression in the top, perhaps for holding offerings. It is plain and stands 
about 30 cm. high, being about a meter in diameter. It was found southwest 
of the inscribed altar. 

The inscription on Stela 19 has one other unique feature, namely, that 
each of the period-glyph coefficients occupies a glyph-block by itself. Note 
also the filling element at the right of each except the cycle coefficient, 2. ¢., 
A4, AS, A6, and a7, plate 16, which look like ending prefixes. 


STRELA 23) 
Provenance: Original position unknown. Found bui t into the walls 


of the cabildo at Santa Rita, about 12 kilometers up 
the valley from the Main Structure, at Group 1. (See 


plate 3.) 
Date: g.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh.! 
Text, drawing: figure 26. 
References: Mauds'ay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 16. 


Morley, 19164, p 338. 





1For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 147 


Three pieces of Stela 23, the most distant of all the outlying monuments, 
were found by the writer in March 1916, built into the walls of the cabildo 
at Santa Rita or Cachapa (Group 1), 12 kilometers northeast of the Main 
Structure. It is probably the same monument as that mentioned by Maud- 
slay at this place: ““The small village of Cachapa, which is situated about 
seven miles up the river-valley to the northeast, also stands on the site of 
old buildings, and several pieces of stone with remains of hieroglyphic 
writing on them are still to be seen lying amongst the rubbish of the plaza.’”! 

From such information as was to be had from the villagers, these appear 
to have been placed in the walls of the cabildo about 30 years ago. Con- 
cerning its original provenance little could be learned, other than that it was 
found somewhere in the village. However, in the village plaza there is a large 
drum-shaped stone, 1.06 meters in diameter and 37 cm. high, which would 
seem to have been either the foundation-stone or altar of Stela 23. As it is 
without decoration, perhaps the former is the better explanation of its use; 
and to this we may add Maudslay’s testimony that there were several 
hieroglyphic fragments lying in the rubbish of the plaza in 1885. 

Santa Rita is built on the site of an ancient Maya settlement like the 
modern village of Copan, and similarly it has grown at the expense of the 
earlier group. Dressed stones are found in house-walls all over the village, 
and fragmentary sculptures, heads, torsos, and the like are scattered around 
the court yards of different houses. Mounds even may still be found within 
the limits of the village, and the ancient and modern plaza areas would appear 
to be coincident. In short, there is abundant evidence of the existence in 
former times of a not inconsiderable settlement here. 

When Stela 23 was broken it seems to have cracked into five large pieces, 
of which only three have been recovered—the top, third, and fourth fragments. 
Of the two missing pieces, only one had sculpture, however; the other, the 
bottom fragment, being the part that was embedded in the ground. The 
combined height of the three fragments recovered is I.70 meters, to which it 
seems necessary to add another half meter for the missing second piece. The 
monument must have thus stood at least 2.5 meters above ground and 
probably 3 meters. It is 61 cm. wide and 46 cm. in thickness. 

An exhaustive search of the village failed to disclose the present where- 
abouts of the missing sculptured piece. All the walls in the vicinity were 
examined, but without success. One old woman said she thought it had been 
broken up into smaller pieces and used in the foundations of the church, but 
she was not sure. “It had been a long time ago.” An examination of the 
church walls failed to confirm this story, although it may well be true. What 
the writer fears most is that it was broken into very small pieces and built 
into positions where the sculptured faces are either hidden or inconspicuous, 
as in the case of Altars L’ and M’ in the walls of the church at Copan village. 

The front is sculptured with a human figure side-view—the first, and 
with one other exception, Stela 11, the only example of a side presentation 








1Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 16. 


148 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


of the main figure on a stela yet reported at Copan. The back and sides 
are inscribed with glyphs. On the basis of this arrangement of the design, 
Stela 23 may be assigned to Class 4. 













iy 
Yj 
“tH, YUU HOY 
YY YH 


OVZZP 
YACTZZ MA; 
( 
va 


Yi 
Ue 

Y 

Yj 




















bea 
f 





paar 








Fic. 26.—Inscription on Stela 23: a, c, sides; b, back. 


The inscription (see figure 26, b) opens on the back with an Initial Series 
introducing glyph, p1—E2, the variable central element of which is the kin- 
sign ina shield. It is almost identical with the corresponding element in the 
Initial Series introducing glyph on the back of Stela 16. Compare figure 
26, b, with plate 10, b, and also with Date 28 of the Hieroglyphic Stairway. 

The cycle-glyph and coefficient, p3, figure 26, ), are almost entirely effaced, 
and the katun-sign and coefficient, £3, partially so. Fortunately, enough of 
the latter remains to show that it is 10, the two bars appearing very clearly. 

The tuns, uinals, kins, and day, D4, E4, ps, and Es respectively, are on 
the missing second fragment, as are also the first two glyphs of the Supple- 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 149 


mentary Series, p6 and £6. It is difficult to say whether four or six glyph- 
blocks are missing here, though from what remains of the Supplementary 
Series on the next piece, it would seem as though there had probably been 
six, as shown in figure 26, b. If so, the last two, pé and £6, doubtless were 
Glyphs G and F, respectively, of the Supplementary Series. 

The glyphs on the third fragment continue the Supplementary Series, 
E7 being very clearly Glyph C; ps, Glyph X; and Es, Glyph B. 

The fourth fragment opens with Glyph A, the last glyph of the Supple- 
mentary Series at p9, followed by the month of the Initial Series terminal 
date 8 tat £9. There follow two familiar, though undecipherable, glyphs in 
D10, E10, in which the kin or day-sign appears to be the most important 
element, and then comes a Secondary Series in pilof 5.11. Finally, the last 
glyph on the back, £110, is very clearly 12 Ahau, and the top of the adjoining 
side on the right facing the front of the stela, figure 26, a, F1,is 8 Ceh. The 
next glyph, ci (figure 26, a), is entirely effaced, and the next, F2, is a period- 
glyph, recording probably 11, 12, or 13 katuns. 

Goodman’s tables show that the only place the Calendar Round date 
12 Ahau 8 Ceh could have ended an even tun in Cycle 9 was in 9.11.0.0.0, 
at which time it also ended a katun and hotun as well, so there is little doubt 
that 12 Ahau 8 Ceh, End of Katun 11, is the date recorded by £115-F2. 

Other points in support of this reading are: the proximity of the 
Initial Series date, which we know is in Katun Io (£3); the proximity of the 
Calendar Round date on the other side (left facing the front of the stela), 
i. é., Within two years of 9.11.0.0.0, as we shall see; the prominence of this 
date 9.11.0.0.0 elsewhere at Copan being recorded on no less than six other 
stele; and finally the general stylistic criteria. Indeed, the contemporaneous 
date of this monument may safely be accepted as 9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh. 

If the Secondary Series number in DU, 2. ¢., 5.11, is counted back from 
9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh, it will not reach the Initial Series terminal date: 

9.11. 0. 0. 0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh 
Bury 
g.10.19.12. 9 5 Muluc17 Xul 

The katun coefficient in £3 agrees, but the month coefficient in £9 does 
not. As recorded, it is clearly 8, while by the above calculation 17 is reached. 
If, however, we change the Secondary Series number from 5.11 to 5.12, 7. ¢., 
supposing one dot to have disappeared from the coefficient in pila, we 
reach a date 9.10.19.12.8 4 Lamat 16 Xul, which is exactly 1 tun later than 
the best reading of the Calendar Round date on the left side facing the 
monument (see figure 26, c, H4, 14), a significant coincidence: 


9.10.18.12.8 8 Lamat 1 Yaxkin 
I. 0.0 
g.10.19.12.8 4 Lamat 16 Xul 


Neither of these, however, can be the Initial Series terminal date, and 
owing to the loss of the second fragment it is impossible to fix this other than 
as having been some time in Katun Io. 


150 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


There is another period-ending on the side under discussion at G7-F9, 
figure 26, a, which is exceedingly important, noless than 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu End 
of Cycle 13, the starting-point of the Maya chronological system. So far as the 
writer knows, this unique date is found on only four other monuments in 
the Maya field: Stela C at Quirigua, Altar 1 at Piedras Negras, Stela J at 
Copan, and in the Temple of the Cross at Palenque. As recorded here, all is 
very clear but the Cycle 13 in F9, though the left-hand dot-and part of the 
middle dot and topmost bar may still be seen. Cycle 13 is again recorded 
on the front of this monument at B1, the second glyph in the horizontal band 
in the upper left-hand corner. GQ Concerning the unusual 
arrangement of the glyphs on ‘= \} the front, more will be 
said later. — | 

One other date 
remains to be de- scribed. ‘Thepreliminary inspection would 
indicate the reading 8 fror2 Yaxkin. Ifthe month coefficient 
is 2, the day-sign must be either Kan, Muluc, Ix, or Cauac. A comparison 
of H4, however, with all the known variants of these days shows that it has 
not the slightest resemblance to any of them, and we are forced to conclude 
either that this is an entirely new variant of one of them, or else the month 
coefficient in 14 is not 2. The latter is the better explanation of the matter. 

The day-sign, while it bears no resemblance to any of the known forms 
for Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac, has on the other hand a very strong resem- 
blance to an unusual variant of Lamat, which, so far as the writer knows, 
occurs only here at Copan and once at Palenque. (See figure 39.) 

This variant appears to be the same as the sign for the planet Venus, or 
rather one-half of that sign,! which may indicate some ceremonial connection 
between Lamat and that planet. At all events, half of the Venus-sign appears 
to have been used also as a sign for Lamat.2 But Lamat can only have a 
corresponding month coefficient of 1, 6, 11, or 16, and it is therefore appar- 
ent that the coefficient of Yaxkin in H4 must be 1 instead of 2.° 











1The complete sign for the planet Venus (>) is bilaterally symmetrical with reference both to the verti- 
cal and horizontal axes of the glyph. Half of +5 the sign (<) ©) however, is frequently used as a sub- 
stitute, both in the inscriptions and in the codices. In pp. 46-50 of the Dresden Codex, 
where the Venus-solar period is set forth, (0) ‘o) the two signs appear side by side, in identical 
relations. Indeed, the use of but half of the sign for the whole would appear to have been due to the 
desire for brevity rather than as indicating any corresponding change of meaning. 

2The other examples of the use of this variant for Lamat are: 

Stela J, east side, Glyph 325 (Maudslay’s numeration), see p. 203, and figure 39, b. 

Hier. steps south side Mound 2. Gz (plate 26, g), see p. 234 and figure 39, c. 

Hier. Stairway west side Mound 26. Date 2. sa, see p. 243 and figure 39, f. 

Hier. Stairway west side Mound 26. Date 3. pd, see p. 244 and figure 39, g. 

Hier. Stairway west side Mound 26. Date 24. Fragment 6 (plate 27), see p. 259 and figure 39, h. 

Hier. Stairway west side Mound 26. ca (Gordon, 1902, plate 13 D), see p. 265 and figure 39, e. 

. Palenque, Palace Group, House C, Stairway. Maudslay (1889-1902, vol. tv, plate 23, B61. h.), and also 
figure 39, a. 

It will be noted that two-thirds of these examples are from the Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26. Another 
connection between the Venus-sign and the day Lamat, although not a direct use of the former for the latter, is 
seen on Altar K (see p. 185), where the variable element in the Initial Series introducing glyph is the Venus-sign 
and the day of the Initial Series terminal date is Lamat. ; 

3As drawn in figure 26, c, the coefficient of Yaxkin looks as much like 2 as 1, but a final examination of the 
original in 1917 convinced the writer that either 1 or 2 is equally possible here, the original having one large, 
plain, round dot, inadequately drawn in the text above, between two smaller ones, also plain. 


SNS An FW WH 





PLATE 17 


MORLEY. 





FET er es ee my ar me re nae 








1. 


igina 


ide, Drawn from the or 


he back and south s 


inscription ont 


Stela 12. Part of the 





. 
’ . 
ae 
. ‘ 
oo » ; 
eae * 
en > 
. 
7 . 
1 
at ’ 
-= . af 
, bel 
- . ‘ 
: 
oath . 
, “ 2 . 
4. » , 
e 5? ‘ 
- ‘ 
wv t t P 
* ‘ Rem 7 
= : hy . 
< : 
= pee 
r. 
Pu 
- ‘ P 
" : tat 
: - \ : 
Tha, : y, 
’ 
: 
, 
y 7 ' 
— 
f 
- 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 151 

The best defense of this reading that can be offered is the satisfactory 
chronological coincidence which its use develops; for if we read m4, 14 as 8 
Lamat 1 Yaxkin, we will have a date which is within 2 years of the hotun- 
ending recorded on this stela, and which is exactly 1 tun earlier than a date 
reached in calculations on the other side, as already noted: 


g.10.18.12. 8 
I. 02°C 
g.10.19.12. 8 
Si 
9.11.70..0;40 


8 Lamat 1 Yaxkin 
(360 days) 

4 Lamat 16 Xul 
(112 days) 

12 Ahau 8 Ceh 


The month coefficient in 14, as noted in note 3, page 150, looks as much like 
I as 2, and this, coupled with the fact that the day-sign is probably Lamat, 
and the satisfactory chronologic proximity arising from such an identifica- 
tion tends to corroborate the accuracy of the reading suggested. A sum- 
mary of the text follows: 


Front BI Cycle 13 
Back DI-Es, Fo GAOL i? 6,7, 0r 8? 
DiI 5.12 
Back and side Er1b, Fi g.II. 0. o. o 12 Ahau 8 Ceh 
Side GI, F2 End of Katun 11 
G9, Fio0 13. 0. 0. 0. o 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu 
Gio, FII End of Cycle 13 
Side H7, 17 g.10.18.12. 8 8 Lamat 1 Yaxkin 


There are 6 glyph-blocks on the front of this monument, Ig on the back, 
and 22 on each side, making a total of 6+19+22+22=6g for the entire text. 

The portrayal of the principal figure of a stela, in profile, together with 
the peculiar inverted L-shape arrangement of the glyphs on the front, strikes 
a unique note of presentation at Copan, one indeed more characteristic of 
the northern cities of the Old Empire, 7. ¢., those of the Usumacintla Valley 
and the Peten region of northern Guatemala. (See plate 1.) Examples of 
this presentation in the former region are Lintels 32, 42, and 46, and Stele 
11, 19, and 20 at Yaxchilan, where it is particularly noticeable; and in the 
latter region Stele 23 and 29 at Naranjo. 

The only other stela at Copan having the same presentation of the 
principal figure is the small late stela, No. 11 (p. 369), which, however, 
lacks the peculiar inverted L-shaped glyph-panel so characteristic of the 
stele and lintels at the northern cities. 

Stela 23, therefore, is particularly important as a connecting-link between 
the two parts of the Old Empire. It indicates that even at this early date 
(9.11.0.0.0), at the beginning of the Middle Period, there must have been 
close and constant intercourse between the different parts of the Old Empire. 
Indeed, we can possibly imagine northern sculptors as coming south to the 
great southern metropolis for new ideas, and the Copan sculptors as going 
north to draw inspiration and help from the great northern centers. ‘There 
must have been a free and general exchange of ideas and technical processes 
and endless borrowing and copying of decorative motives. Possibly the 


152 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


human figure in profile may have been introduced at Copan with this monu- 
ment, only to have fallen into immediate disfavor. 

The glyphic presentation on the front of Stela 23 is but a single item in 
a vast body of evidence now available tending to establish the absolute 
homogeneity of culture throughout the Old Empire region. 


STELA 13. 


Provenance: On a steep bluff overhanging the north bank of the 
Copan River 6.5 kilometers northeast of the Main 
Structure at Group 2. (See plate 3.) 


Date: (Stela) 9.11. 0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh.! 
(Altar) 9.10.17.0.4 2 Kan 7 Mac (??). 
Text, drawing: plates 15, b, and 22, d. 


Stela 13 was found by one of the Peabody Museum Expedition, but no 
description of it has ever been published, not even the fact of its discovery. 
Through information received from Gordon, the writer was able to re-locate 
this monument during his visit to Copan in 1912. 

It lies on the summit of a low hill or bluff overhanging the north bank 
of the Copan River, 6.5 kilometers up the valley from the Main Structure, 
and within 5 or 6 kilometers of Santa Rita, where Stela 23 was found. (See 
plate 3.) It is 3.34 meters long, 71 cm. wide, and 61 cm. thick. The asso- 
ciated altar stands in front of the north side of the monument, which we 
may therefore conclude was its front. 

All four sides are inscribed with glyphs, as in the cases of Stele 20, 15, 
21, 9, 12, 10, and 19, and on the basis of the arrangement of its design, Stela 
13 is to be assigned to Class 3. The Initial Series introducing glyph appears 
at Al-B2. (See plate15,b.) The cycle coefficient (a3) is 9 expressed by a bar- 
and-dot numeral. The katun coefficient (B3) is unusually clear as 11, also 
expressed by a bar-and-dot numeral. The monument is broken across the 
tun and uinal glyphs, which are somewhat destroyed in consequence. The 
two coefficients, however (A4a and B4a respectively), are sufficiently preserved 
to permit the identification of both aso. The kin coefficient (asa) isin better 
condition and is exactly like the tun and uinal coefficients, namely, o. 

The day of the Initial Series terminal date, 12 Ahau, is not recorded 
at Bs as usual, but is found at as after the last glyph of the Supple- 
mentary Series, which in this inscription is of very unusual form. 
The ball element in the oval in the upper part is a grotesque head. This 
is very rare; in fact, the writer recalls but one other instance in the entire 
range of the Maya inscriptions, also here at Copan, not only on one of the 
monuments of this same group, namely, Stela 3,? but also upon one recording 
the same date, namely, 9.11.0.0.0. 








1For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 

2A few cases where the moon-glyph occurs in constellation bands are not included here, although even in such 
cases the head appearing is sometimes that of God D. Thus, for example, in the constellation band on the base of 
Stela 10 at Piedras Negras, God D appears in the upper part of the moon-glyph. See Maler, 1901, plate 19. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 153 


In this other example the grotesque head is of the same form as the 
one here on Stela (2&5) 13, and the writer suggests that both may repre- 
sent God D, the Moon God.!' The association of this particular 
deity with thelast Cy glyph of the Supplementary Series is very appro- 
propriate, since this glyph as explained in Appendix VI is undoubtedly the 
sign for the moon. Moreover, in the codices the moon-glyph is the main part 
of the sign for God D. This connection between God D and the moon, and 
hence between God D and the last glyph of the Supplementary Series, which 
is probably the sign for the moon, is strengthened by the discovery of the 
head of God D in this glyph on Stela 13 and also in the corresponding 
glyph on Stela 3 as well. 

Returning once more to our text, the month-sign, 8 Ceh, will be found in 
a9. The last glyph in plate 15, d, B9, is very interesting. It records the “End 
of a tun,” the tun-sign being the unusual winged-Cauac variant, the Cauac 
element here modified into a human head. Note the ending prefix and the 
hand. Another example is seen in Glyph gis from the tablet of the 
Temple of the Sun at Palenque (Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1v, plates 87-89). 
Here the end of a Tun Io is recorded, the tun-sign being the usual head- 
variant, modified by well-known Cauac elements—the wing as a subfix, the 
“‘cloud-balls”’ as a head ornament—and the circle, here shown as a hook 
of dots, in the eye. 

These two examples are extremely important as establishing the early 
synonymity of the winged-Cauac and the tun-signs, and they are the 
beginnings of what later became almost the exclusive use of the former for 
the latter in the New Empire. (See also the inscribed peccary-skull in figure 
56 and the accompanying discussion, pages 379-381, for a still earlier occur- 
rence of this same variant.) 

The whole Initial Series of Stela 13 therefore reads 9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 
Ceh, as follows: 

A1-B2 Initial Series introducing glyph 


A3 9 cycles 

B3 11 katuns 

A4 o tuns 

B4 © uinals 

AS o kins 

B8 12 Ahau 

Ag 8 Ceh 

B9 End of a tun 


There are a few other signs which are familiar, although of unknown 
meaning. The last glyph on the Initial Series side is the day 1 Ahau. Its 
record here is difficult to explain unless it be taken as a reference to the 
fact that the preceding katun ended ona day 1 Ahau, viz, 9.10.0.0.0 1 Ahau 8 
Kayab. 

The altar associated with Stela 13 is of the round, drum-shaped type, 
and is 1.49 meters in diameter and 46 cm. high. It had some crude carving 
on top, and four pairs of glyphs on the sides, the pairs being 90° apart. Only 





1See Morley, 1916, p. 370, and Schellhas, 1904, pp. 22, 23, figures 18-21, and plate 1, D. 


154 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


the pair on the north side (see plate 22, d) seems to be of a calendrical nature. 
It records a Calendar Round date as follows: 1 or 2 Kan 7 ?, the day-sign 
surely being Kan and the month coefficient surely 7. The best value of the 
day coefficient is 2, though 11 is possible. The month-sign is possibly Zotz, 
though Muan or even Kankin and Mac are other possible values. The best 
reading of the date therefore seems to be 2 Kan 7 Zotz. This date occurred at 
intervals of every 52 years throughout Cycle 9. The probabilities in this 
case, however, are that it was some time near 9.11.0.0.0, the date on the stela 
with which the altar is correlated. It is clear, moreover, that this altar 
does not record a hotun-ending, since all hotuns ended on some day Ahau, 
while Kan is the day here recorded. The two occurrences of 2 Kan 7 Zotz 
in Cycle 9 nearest this Initial Series are, 9.9.8.2.4 and 9.12.0.15.4. The 
former is I.11.15.16 (about 31 years) before the Initial Series of Stela 13 and 
the latter is 1.0.15.4 (about 20.5 years) after the Initial Series of Stela 13. 

Both of these readings are unsatisfactory and the writer is loath to accept 
either as the date recorded on this altar. It is quite possible, moreover, that 
the terminal date is not 2 Kan 7 Zotz. If the day coefficient is not 2, it must 
be 1. This gives the date 1 Kan 7 Zotz, which occurred in Cycle g nearest 
before and after 9.11.0.0.0 at the following places: 9.10.0.5.4 and 9.12.13.0.4, 
both of which are equally unsatisfactory here. 

Another possible reading, 1 Kan 7 Muan, occurred nearest before and 
after the date of Stela 13 at 9.9.8.13.4 and_9.12.1.8.4, both of which are 
again equally unsatisfatory. 

Another possibility is 9.10.8.17.4 1 Kan 7 Kankin, although little may 
be urged in its favor, except that the month-sign might possibly be Kankin. 

Approaching the question from a different angle, let us next find what 
are the nearest occurrences of the date 1 or 2 Kan 7 ?, that is, leaving the 
month-sign indeterminate for the present, both before and after 9.11.0.0.0. 
These can be shown to be: 


BEFORE. AFTER. 
9.10.17. 0.4. 2 Kan’7 Mac 9.11.0.50.4 (Yi Kan Ap 
g.10.16.16.4 1 Kan 7 Zac 9.11.0.11.4 2 Kan 7 Tzec 


O11, 4.4 93 Kan oa 
9.11.1. 6.4 2 Kan 7 Cumhu 


Of these, the first is the only one whose month-sign may be a grotesque 
head, and even this reading has little in its favor. 

All things considered, however, the writer is inclined to accept it as the 
least of all evils and to regard the month-sign in B1 as an unusual variant for 
Mac, although it should be understood that this reading is far from satis- 
factory and is by no means to be accepted as proved. A summary of the 
entire text follows: 

Stela AI-Ag 9.11. 0. 0. oO 12 Ahau 8 Ceh 


(2.17.16) undeclared 
Altar A1-Br 9.10.17. 0. 4 2 Kan7 Mac?? 








1Tt can not be 3, since the three dots are not all of the same size, and, moreover, are otherwise unlike. 


PLATE 18 


MORLEY. 


, PRA 


rd 


nye 





Stela 2. Part of the inscription on the back, and east side. Drawn from the original. 


ECKERT LITHO, CO., WASH.,D.Cc, 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. T55 


STELA 3, 
Provenance: In the Middle Court south of Mound 4 at the Main 
Structure. (See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.11.0,0.0'+ 12. Ahau8 Ceh,} 
Text, drawing: plate 19, a and b. 
Spinden, 1913, plate 19, 3 (front only). 
References: Gordon, 1896, pp. 35, 36. 


Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 66. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 159, 164, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 149. 


Stela 3 is 4.30 meters long, 95 cm. wide, and 1.07 meters thick. It now 
lies near the center of the Middle Court, some distance south of the south- 
eastern corner of Mound 4, broken into three pieces.” Originally it seems to 
have been supported by a roughly worked drum-shaped foundation-stone, 
which is still 7m situ. 

No chamber was found under this foundation-stone, but instead, under 
the three layers of narrow oblong stones on which it rested, there was a pocket 
of pigments of different colors; in this were found four nephrite heads, each 
carved with a representation of the human face, well executed and highly 
polished. These had been pierced longitudinally, so that they could be sus- 
pended on a string and used as pendants.’ 










eC 
QA 


CY ok )) 











Sc PS? 


BS Bx 2 osy 


mee OF! 


Fic. 27.—Inscription on collar of Stela 3: a, one side complete; 2, c, ¢, f, remains of glyphs 
on ends; d, glyph in center of side opposite a. 


At the level of the ground, the base of the monument was surrounded 
by a sculptured stone collar of four pieces. (See figure 27.) This presents 
the familiar knotted-band decoration so prevalent in the Early and Middle 
Periods at Copan. The centers of the front and back are each occupied by a 
single large glyph (figure 27, a and d), and the two ends of each side by 
smaller glyphs (figure 27, b, c, e, and f), making a total of 6 for the entire 
collar. One of the single glyphs, c, looks like Ahau, although this identifica- 
tion is by no means certain. The ends of the long sides terminate in large, 
grotesque serpent-heads, probably a development of the flanking serpent- 








1For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 

2When Stephens first saw this stela in 1839 it was fallen but does not appear to have been broken: “ This statue 
is fallen and the face destroyed” (1841, vol. 1, p. 149). He calls it Statue K. See Appendix III. 

3Gordon, 1896, p. 36. 


156 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


heads seen on Altars L’, M’, and Q’, and later to be seen on more complex 
altars of the Great Period. 

In Stela 3 for the first time we find both the front and back of the 
monument carved with representations of the human figure, each side being 
inscribed with a single column of 10 glyph-blocks, which, with the 6 on the 
collar, make 26 for the entire text. This is a new development, and on the 
basis of this arrangement of the design, Stela 3 may be referred to a new 
class, 5. The inscription on each side commences with an Initial Series 
introducing glyph; and on this monument, also for the first time, we have 2 
Initial Series recorded.’ 

Gordon says Stela 3 faced north and south, 7. ¢., the surfaces presenting 
the human figures faced in these directions;? and if this was true, the inscrip- 
tion is presented on the east and west sides. Since it is now impossible to 
tell which of the latter faced east and which west, and since there is a rounded 
inclusion of harder rock embedded in the side on which the inscription 
begins, this side, in default of the knowledge of the original orientation, will 
be called the inclusion side. 

The Initial Series introducing glyph is at a1; the upper part and lower 
right-hand corner are missing. (See plate 19, b.) In the top of the variable 
central element, here a grotesque head, a rectangular hole has been cut. 
This is 76 mm. high and 63 mm. wide, and passes diagonally through the 
stone, emerging on the top, 51 mm. behind the edge and in line with the 
variable element. The interior surfaces of this hole are worn smooth, as 
though they had been subjected to rubbing, perhaps by cords. The Initial 
Series introducing glyph on the opposite, B1, has the same kind of a hole 
cut in the same relative position. This hole also emerges at the top behind 
the variable element on this side. The function of these two openings is 
unknown; perhaps banners or streamers of feather-work were attached to 
the stela by means of them; no other stele at Copan show this feature.’ 

The order of the glyphs within the individual glyph-blocks is very 
unusual in this text. Instead of reading from left to right and top to bottom 
within the glyph-block, they read from top to bottom first and then from 
left to right. Unusual as this order is, however, it is amply substantiated by 
the sequence of the known glyphs on both sides of the monument. 

The cycle-sign and coefficient are found in a2a, the upper half being the 
coefficient and the lower half the period-glyph. (See plate 19, b.) The former 
is very clearly 9, and the traces of the clasped hand on the lower part of the 








1Although Stele 15, 18, 16, 17, 21, 7, and P have 4, 3, 2, 2, 4, 3, and 3 Initial Series introducing glyphs respec- 
tively, none of them has more than one Initial Series number. Indeed Stela 3 is not only the first example of 
this kind at Copan, but also the only one yet found here. Such stele are very rare, there being but seven others 
now known in the whole Maya area: Stela 17 at Tikal; Stela 11 at Yaxchilan; Stele 1 and 3 at Piedras Negras, and 
Stele F, D, and E at Quirigua, less than 4 per cent of all known stele. See plate 1 for the location of these sites. 

*See Gordon, 1896, p. 35. This orientation makes Stela 3 face the Middle Court. 

8 Stela 1 at Cancuen on the Rio de la Pasién (plate 1) has holes passing through its top, but they are not only 
larger but are also of different shape, being round. (See Maler, 1908, p. 44 and pl. 13.) Maler here suggests 
these holes were used to bind sacrificial victims to the stele: “It may be assumed that the victims were bound by 
means of the perforations to these stela, the sacrifice probably being usually performed with the victim in an 
upright position before stelz of this kind.” This explanation, it is hardly necessary to add, appears scarcely probable. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 157 


latter leave no doubt as to its identity. The left half of the katun coefficient 
in A2b u. h. is fortunately preserved, although it is like none of the 
known head-variant numerals. It has the fleshless lower jaw, which usually 
stands for 10, but which may on occasion mean 0. ‘This, we have already 
seen, was the case in the kin coefficients on Stele 2 and 19, and it will also 
be found to be true of the tun coefficient in both this Initial Series and that 
on the other side of this same monument. Again, the large circle around the 
eye in this glyph is also characteristic of the kin coefficient of this same 
nitial Series (a4a u. h.), and also of the kin coefficient of the Initial 
Series on the other side (B4a u. h.) both of which are 0; indeed, the former 
also has this same fleshless lower jaw. All things considered, therefore, 
we are probably justified in reading a2) as o katuns. 

The tun-sign and coefficient (A3a) are unusually clear. The former 
(a3a u. h.) again has the fleshless lower jaw, ordinarily 10, but, as in the 
case of the katun coefficient above, here probably o. 

The tun-sign in a3a |. h. is unusually clear, and helps to substantiate 
the correctness of the above sequence of the period-glyphs and their coef- 
ficients. 

The uinal-sign and coefficient in a3) are gone. From what little is left of 
the kin coefficient in a4a u. h., it may almost certainly be identified as o, 
i. e., having the same fleshless jaw and large circle around the eye as the 
katun coefficient. 

Finally, since the katun, tun, and kin coefficients are probably o, the 
missing uinal coefficient in a3b u. h. must almost certainly have been o also, 
and our Initial Series therefore reads 9.0.0.0.0. 

Most unfortunately, the day of the Initial Series terminal date, a4d, 
is entirely effaced, and we thereby lose one opportunity of checking the 
above reading. It can be found from Goodman’s tables, however, to have 
been 8 Ahau. Passing along, we reach the next to last and last glyphs of the 
Supplementary Series in a6. The large plain circle in the upper half of this 
glyph-block in plate 19, b, is the rounded inclusion alluded to above. The 
ancient sculptors were unable to carry the details of their design across its 
refractory surface and were forced to content themselves with breaking it off 
flush with the face of the monument.! 

Again most unfortunately, the month-sign of the Initial Series terminal 
date is suppressed, being filled with the grotesque head and coefficient 9, 
the occurrence of which will be found elsewhere here at Copan, namely, 
on Stela 2 and possibly on Altar H’ (p. 138). Thus our second and last 
opportunity of checking the accuracy of the reading suggested above is 
gone; but in view of the close similarity of a2b u. h. with a3a u.h. and aga 
u. h. on this side and B3a u. h. on the other side, the last of which is proved 
to be o by the calculations, there is little doubt but that the correct reading 














1 Through the kindness of Dr. F. E. Wright, of the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution, the 
writer is able to give a description of this inclusion, as well as of the material of the stela proper See Appendix I. 


158 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


here is 9.0.0.0.0 (8 Ahau 13 Ceh). The remaining glyphs on this side are of 
unknown meaning. 

The inscription on the opposite side (plate 19, a) opens with an Initial 
Series introducing glyph in Bi, the variable element of which, as already 
noted, has a rectangular hole passing through its upper part and out on top 
of the monument. 

The cycle coefficient in B2a u. h. and the katun-sign and coefficient in B2b 
are entirely effaced. ‘The former was doubtless 9. Passing over the latter 
for the present, it will be found that o tuns are recorded in B3a, the tun 
coefficient again having the fleshless lower jaw, usually 10, but on this stela 
always o.! 

The uinal-sign and coefficient in B3) are entirely effaced. The kin-sign 
and coefficient in B4a are clear; the latter is surely 0, the clasped hand being 
used to denote o instead of the fleshless lower jaw, as elsewhere on this 
monument. 

The next glyph, which ordinarily would be the day-sign of the Initial 
Series terminal date, is entirely effaced. Passing over B5, we reach in Boa, 
Glyphs B and A, the next to last and last glyphs of the Supplementary 
Series respectively. The latter, as already explained in connection with 
Stela 13, is very unusual in having a grotesque head, probably that of God 
D, in place of the dot element in the oval in the upper part of the glyph. 
(See pp. 152, 153.) Following this in Bod is the day 12 Ahau, the day-sign 
being the familiar grotesque head variant;? and in Bsa u. h., the month 8 Ceh, 
and in Bsa |. h., Katun 11. The Initial Series recorded upon this monu- 
ment, therefore, is 9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh, and we may fill in the missing 
katun coefficient as 11 and the missing uinal coefficient as 0, and finally 
accept as proven that the fleshless lower jaw in the tun coefficient in this 
Initial Series and in the katun, tun, and kin coefficients of the Initial Series 
on the other side of this monument stands for o. 

In B7b u. h. is very clearly recorded 13 uinals, or exactly 1 tonalamatl, 
260 days. Record of tonalamatls, although very common in the codices, 
is almost unknown in the inscriptions, the present case being one of the very 
few cases known. ‘The end of a tun is probably recorded in the next to last 
glyph-block on this side, Bsd 1. h. 

There are no other decipherable glyphs on this side of the monument. 
A summary of the inscription follows. 

1 When the writer examined Stela 3 in April 1915, he was unable to find the fragment which presented the 
cycle-sign and the tun coefficient, 7. ¢., Aza |. h. and aja u. h. respectively. A protracted search of the 
immediate vicinity of the mor.ument failed te disclose the whereabouts of this piece and he was obliged to leave 
the site without drawing these two glyphs. On his return to this country, however, during a visit to the Peabody 
Museum, he found this missing fragment miscatalogued under the name of “a piece of Stela 4.”’ It had been 
brought from the ruins to Cambridge by the Second Peabody Museum Expedition in 1893; and when its two glyphs 
were drawn to scale, they were found to fit exactly in the position shown in plate 19, a, and their fortunate recovery 
materially aided in the final decipherment of the date cf this monument. 


2 See Bowditch, 1910, plate 6, Nos. 35-38; and Morley, 1915, p. 41 and figure 16, 7’ and h’. Also compare 
Appendix X. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 159 


Inclusion side, Ax Initial Series introducing glyph 
A2a 9 cycles 
A2b o katuns 
Aja o tuns 
A3b © uinals 
A4a o kins 
A4D 8 Ahau 
(13 Ceh) not recorded 
Opposite side, Br Initial Series introducing glyph 
B2a 9 cycles 
B2b 11 katuns 
B3a o tuns 
B3b Oo uinals 
B4a o kins 
B6D 12 Ahau 
B8a u-h. 8 Ceh 
B8a |. h. Katun I1 


B7b u.h. 13 uinals = 260 kins = 1 tonalamatl 
B8b |.h. End of a tun 

The style of the glyphs on Stela 3 is unusual (see plate 19, a and d); 
indeed, they are the most intricate at Copan. The design is exceedingly 
complex, and is executed with a delicacy and feeling hardly to be thought 
possible with tools of stone. Each glyph-block is a beautiful example of 
harmony and balance, and each, regarded as a unit, conforms to the most 
rigid canons of pure design. Barring some of the best work of the Great 
Period, the inscription on this monument ts the finest glyph delineation which 
was done at Copan. 

In summarizing the inscriptions on the foregoing monuments (1. ¢., 
Stele 12, 2, 10, 19, 23, 13, and 3), it is evident that, quite irrespective of the 
dates recorded upon them, they present very considerable stylistic diver- 
gences. Thus, for example, the glyphs on Stela 12 are crude and unskill- 
fully executed as compared with the beautiful ones on Stela 3 just described, 
and yet both of these monuments have the same closing date, namely, 
g.11.0.0.0. Again, the glyphs on Stele 10 and 19 appear to be better carved 
than those on Stela 13, and yet the dates of these two monuments are 
actually 100 days and 60 days earlier, respectively, than the date of Stela 
13, which 1s also 9.11.0.0.0. 

A close examination of these monuments, however, shows that the 
observed stylistic divergences are rather those of execution and technique 
than of subject-matter. A study of their glyphic details, moreover, estab- 
lishes close similarities between the several monuments of the group, and at 
the same time differentiates them from all other monuments here at Copan. 
A case in point is the unique use of the fleshless lower jaw to denote o, found 
only on Stele 2, 19, and 3, here at Copan, and nowhere else in the entire 
Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum. Another example is the portrayal of a 
head in place of the dot element in the last glyph of the Supplementary 
Series, found only on Stele 13 and 3; or again, the substitution of a sign with 
a grotesque head and a coefficient of 9 in place of the month-sign of the 
Initial Series terminal date, found only on Stele 2 and 3;! or again, the use 


1 Altar H’ may possibly be another example of this. See plate 23, a, pb |. h., and p. 138. 


160 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


of the full-figure variant of the uinal-sign, and of head variants for all the 
other periods, found only on Stele 15, 24,1 12, and 2; or again, the use of a 
very unusual grotesque head with large prominent teeth for the kin-sign 
found only in Stele to and 3. These stylistic similarities between the 
several monuments of the group establish a very close connection between 
them, and probably indicate a single source of inspiration, or group of 
sources very closely related, and almost certainly contemporary. 

Doubtless some artisans were more skillful than others; some more 
clever in reproducing in stone the working drawings on paper or skin, which 
must have preceded such elaborate compositions as those represented on 
the Copan stele. Such differences, however, due to individual variations 
in the personal equation, are inevitable in any art at any time. For every 
Maya Phidias or Praxiteles there must have been a score of Alcamenes, 
Naucydes, or Thrasymedes; for every genius, a host of lesser lights. And the 
observed stylistic divergences in the several monuments of this group are 
not greater than would have been due to the varying personal equaticns of 
contemporary sculptors either here at Copan, or at Athens, or at Thebes. 
Indeed, it is almost necessary to postulate a contemporaneous origin for the 
monuments of this group to explain satisfactorily their glyphic similarities. 

The foregoing stylistic analysis forecasts, as it were, the chronologic 
situation as established by the dates actually recorded upon these monu- 
ments, namely, that all seven date from the same period, five (Stele 12, 2, 
23, 13, and 3) actually recording the date 9.11.0.0.0, and the other two, 
Stele 1o and 19, dates only 100 days and 60 days earlier respectively; and 
in the case of the last-mentioned, the inscription on the associated altar 
doubtless also brought its date down to 9.11.0.0.0. 

Considering the chronologic record somewhat closer, it will be remem- 
bered that (1) two of these monuments (Stele 12 and 2) have 9.10.15.0.0, 
the previous hotun-ending as their Initial Series, but close with Period End- 
ing dates of 9.11.0.0.0; (2) that another, Stela 23, has a Katun 1o Initial 
Series, but closes with this same Period Ending date; (3) that two others 
(Stele 10 and 19) have as their Initial Series dates less than 6 months earlier, 
one of which, as just explained, was probably brought down to 9.11.0.0.0 
by a Secondary Series on the associated altar; and finally (4) that the 
remaining two, Stele 13 and 3, actually have 9.11.0.0.0 as their Initial 
Series.2. In short, chronologically considered, these monuments probably 
date from the same hotun-ending, namely, 9.11.0.0.0, a condition corroborated 
by the stylistic criteria in spite of considerable technical divergences.’ 

The situation, therefore, may be summed up as follows: These seven 
stele were probably erected, or at least dedicated, at the same time, namely, 





1 Although Stele 15 and 24 show this same unusual feature, they are 130 and 170 years earlier respectively 
than Stela 12 and Stela 2 and therefore are in no danger of being confused with them either on chronologic or 
stylistic grounds. 

2 Although Stela 3 presents two Initial Series, 9.0.0.0.0 and 9.11.0.0.0, only the latter of couise could have 
been the contemporaneous date. 

3It is possible that Stele 12 and 2 may date from the previous hotun-ending, 9.10.15.0.0, in which case the 
Katun 11 dates on them are prophetic. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 161 


g.11.0.0.0, but the actual making of them, the carving, was intrusted to 
different hands. In two cases, Stele 2 and 3, representations of the human 
figure were attempted, Stela 3 being the more successful, as well as the 
more ambitious, since it has two figures. One, Stela 23, shows a side pre- 
sentation of the human figure, the only example of its kind at Copan. The 
other four were inscribed with glyphs on all four sides and vary in excellence 
in the following order, the first being the crudest: Stele 12, 13, 10, and Ig. 
Finally, although differing considerably in technique, all seven may safely 
be assigned to the same hotun-ending. 

We come next to a period of some perplexity, namely, the katun after 
g.11.0.0.0. Following this latter date, there seems to have been a hiatus 
in the sequence of the monuments at Copan for two hotuns, since there are 
no sculptures, either stele or altars, that can be assigned to the period 
between 9.11.0.0.0 and 9.11.15.0.0, on which latter date Stela 1 and the East 
Altar of Stela 5 were erected. The next hotun, 9.12.0.0.0, seems to have been 
marked by the erection of two altars but no stele—the West Altar of Stela 5 
and the Altar of Stela r. At least no stela has yet been found recording this 
date. The uncertainty alluded to above, in regard to these four monuments, 
lies first in the possibility that the dates of these three altars may not be 
correctly deciphered as given, a possibility, however, which the writer 
believes to be remote, and second, in the fact that the East Altar of Stela 5 
apparently should be associated with Stela 1 and not with Stela 5, the altar 
now associated with Stela 1 belonging elsewhere. These points will receive 
further attention later, and since the dates suggested above are probably 
correct, these four monuments will be presented in the following order: 
Stela 1, the East and West Altars of Stela 5, and the altar of Stela 1. 


STELLATE 


Provenance: On the second step of the stairway on the western slope 
of Mound g at the southeastern corner of the Mid- 
dle Court, Main Structure. (See plate 6.) 


Date: g.11.15.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Mol.! 
Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 100. 
(b) drawing: ibid., plate 100, A, B, and c. 
Gordon, 1896, figure 6. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 100, 101, 135, 196, and table 31. 


Gordon, 1896, pp. 36, 37. 

Gordon, 1902, pp. 174-176. 

Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 66. 
Spinden, 1913, p. 159, and table 1. 

Stela 1 is broken into two pieces. The upper and larger part lies on the 
ground, the base being im situ on the second step of the stairway ascending 
the western slope of Mound 9. Underneath the base of this stela was a 
cruciform chamber like those under Stele 7,1, M, and C. This was opened by 
the Fourth Peabody Museum Expedition in 1895, and was found to con- 
tain “five rude earthenware vessels, fragments of stalactites, shells of the 
Spondylus calcifer, a large jadeite bead, and a quantity of cinnabar,” all 





1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


162 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


of which material is now on exhibition at the American Museum of Natural 
History, New York.! 

Below, on the ground-level, is the circular altar described on pages 
174-177, and figured in plate 21. As explained more fully there and as 
noted briefly above, it is probable that this altar was not originally cor- 
related with Stela 1, but with some other monument now missing. 

Stela 1 is about 2.75 meters long, 91 cm. wide and 76 cm. thick. Its 
front (west face) presents a large human figure; and its back and sides are 
inscribed with glyphs, on the basis of which arrangement of the design it 
is to be referred to Class 4. There is but one Initial Series introducing glyph 
at Al—B2 on the back (east face), and this is followed by the Initial Series 
g.11.15.14.0 11 Ahau 8 Zotz, as follows: 


A1B2 Initial Series introducing glyph 


A3 9 cycles 
B3 11 katuns 
A4 15 tuns 
B4 14° uinals 
AS o kins 
CI 11 Ahau 
C2 8 Zotz 


This date is just 14 uinals after a hotun-ending in the Long Count; 
and in psb exactly this number of uinals 1s recorded. Finally, there follows 
next in p6é the date 4 Ahau 13 Mol, which is the ending-date of the previous 
hotun, 9.11.15.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Mol. 

This distance-number of 14 uinals, therefore, is to be counted backward 
from the Initial Series instead of forward to reach the hotun-ending recorded. 
Secondary Series numbers which are to be counted backward are very 
unusual,’ and only the desire to bring the Initial Series terminal date back 
to the nearest hotun-ending could have justified this violation of precedent 
here. The coefficient of the day-sign in this hotun-ending date is also very 
unusual. It is neither the usual type of bar-and-dot numeral nor a head- 
variant. ‘The number recorded is clearly 4 and is represented by 4 dots in 
a circular cartouche, thus @&) These slight irregularities, however, in no 
way destroy the accuracy of the above reading, and the date of Stela 1 
may be safely accepted as 9.11.15.0.04 Ahau 13 Mol. This text has 12-+9+9 
= 30 glyph-blocks, the Initial Series introducing glyph occupying the space 


2) confirms the above 
ment. ‘The prefix, 


variant of the hotun-sign, which further § 
reading as the correct date of this monu- 











1 Gordon, 1896, pp. 36, 37. 

2 Maudslay’s drawing (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 100, A, glyph 4) incorrectly shows 12 uinals. An examination of the 
original, however, provid that the two outside dots had the same interior circles as the two inside ones, and that all 
four are therefore numerical. Compare the dots in B4 with those in 43, B3 and cl, all of which show the same 
interior circle, for verification of this statement. In Maudslay’s drawing also the month coefficient in cz (ibid., 
c, glyph 2) appears as 13; the original, however, is clearly 8. 

® For a discussion of the direction of the count in Maya numerical series, see Morley, 1915, pp. 136-138. 

4 Several other cases of this kind occur both here at Copan (reviewing stand in the Western Court and Altars 
Q and W’) and elsewhere, and the-whole question has been reviewed in Chapter IV, p. 333. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 163 


although unusual, is probably an ending-sign, the superfix an ornamented 
numerical bar, 7. ¢., 5, and the main element, the winged-Cauac variant of the 
tun-sign. Note the “balls” in the upper right-hand corner and the half circle 
of dots at the bottom, both characteristics of the tun element in the hotun-sign. 

The foundations of Stela 1, 7. ¢., the manner in which the cruciform 
chamber underneath is built into the stairway on the western side of Mound 
g, are such as to necessitate that both stela and mound were erected at the 
same time, namely, 9.11.15.0.0 (the date of Stela 1); and if so, this monu- 
ment is the earliest surely im situ at the Main Structure. 

It has already been pointed out (pp. 107, 115, 125) that Stele E and P, even 
though the latter is still standing, are neither of them in the positions for 
which they were originally designed, but that, on the contrary, both had been 
removed to the Main Structure in ancient times from some other locality, 
probably Group 9. 

There remain, however, two other monuments at the Main Structure, 
Stele 2 and 3, which are 15 years older than Stela 1, and which may possibly 
be im situ. Of the seven stele recording the date 9.11.0.0.0, these are the 
only two, except Stela 23 at Group 1, which have the human figure carved 
upon them, all the others being in Class 3. And it is conceivable for this 
very reason that these two may have had a greater value than the others 
in the eyes of the ancient inhabitants of the city, sufficient, indeed, to have 
insured their removal to the Main Structure from some earlier location after 
g.11.0.0.0, like Stele E and P. In other words, all four of these monuments 
were too good to be left standing in outlying groups, once the Main Structure 
had become the principal settlement in the valley, and they were removed 
thither some time after 9.11.0.0.0, and the writer believes after 9.11.15.0.0, 
when Stela 1 was erected, and possibly even before the Great Plaza was 
laid out shortly after 9.12.5.0.0. The earliest stela erected at the Main Struc- 
ture was probably one of these three, Nos. 1, 2, or 3, and of these, Stela 1, 
as the only one of the three indubitably zm situ where found, has the best 
claims to this distinction. In any event, the Main Structure began to become 
the most important settlement in the valley about g.11.0.0.0 or a little later, 
and Mound g is probably the oldest construction now extant there in any- 
thing like its original condition. 


East ALTAR OF STELA 5. 


Provenance: Probably not in situ. Originally may have been associ- 
ated with Stela 1 at the Main Structure. Now 1 
kilometer west of the Main Structure in front of the 
east face of Stela 5 at Group 8. (See plate 3.) 


Date: g.11.15.0.0 4Ahau 13 Mol.! 
Text, drawing: plate 20, b, and figures 28 and 29. 
References: Morley, 1917¢, p. 287. 


Spinden, 1913, p. 161 and table 1. 


1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


164 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The East Altar of Stela 5 is 1.93 meters in diameter and 51 cm. high. 
It is broken into 9 pieces, of which 2, Fragments T and R! in figure 28, are 
still missing. When the writer first 
visited Copan in 1910, four fragments, 
S, U, W, and Z, were missing. The 
first two of these were found in 1915 in 
the modern stone wall just across the 
road from where this altar now stands, 
in front of the east face of Stela 5s. 

This wall was built some 20 or 30 
years ago of faced stone blocks, and 





even sculptured pieces from ruined ix) 
buildings in the immediate vicinity; Me eee 
: vi 
and it had long been suspected that ee 
“<< ra) 


some of the missing pieces of Stela 5 “ta 
and of its two altars might have been 4 
used in its construction. In 1912 Spin- Fic. 28—Top of East Altar of Stela 5 showing 
den found one of the most important number of, oamept aS a 
pieces of Stela 5, that presenting the 

upper part of the Initial Series, embedded in this wall; and therefore it 
seemed advisable to search here for the other missing pieces. In 1915 a 
section of 125 meters—62 or 63 meters on either side of Stela 5—was 
taken down to its very foundations, and each stone examined for traces of 
sculpture; and in the course of this work two pieces of this altar were 
recovered, Fragment S from the wall itself and Fragment U from just east 
of Stela 5, half buried in the earth. Two pieces of the West Altar of Stela 
5, Fragments Y and Z, figure 32, were also recovered at the same time. 
Unfortunately the piece presenting the missing part of the Initial Series 
on Stela 5 itself was not found. 

In 1917 the second-growth bush north of Stela 5 was felled, and this 
parcel of land put into tobacco. During the course of the clearing two other 
fragments of this altar, W and Z, were recovered about 30 meters northeast 
of Stela 5. Fragment W (see figure 29)? 
presents Glyphs C, D, and E of the Sup- 
plementary Series. Fragment Z fitted in 
between Fragments 5 and Y. 

The inscription on this altar is pre- 
sented upon the periphery, the top and 
bottom being plain. There is a single 
band of 15 glyph-blocks, which completely 
encircles the stone. ‘The order of reading 
within the individual glyph-blocks is again 


ie 





Fic. 29.—Inscription on Fragment W of East 
Altar of Stela 5. 








1 Fragment R originally came from just above Fragment U, and is not shown in figure 28. 

2 Fragment W is not shown on plate 20, b, which was made before this piece was discovered in 1917. A drawing 
of its two glyph-blocks, however, will be found in figure 29 ‘These should occupy the third and fourth dotted 
squares to the right of the Initial Series in plate 20, d, 2. ¢., just to the left of Glyph X of the Supplementary Series. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 165 


unusual, being like that on Stela 3, 7. ¢., from top to bottom and left to 
right, and, unlike that on the altar of Stela 1, the inscription of which is 
composed like this, of a single band of glyph-blocks. 

The text opens on Fragments 8 and U, and the missing Fragment T, 
with an Initial Series introducing glyph at a, plate 20, b, shown by the star 
in figure 28, and the next piece (plate 20, b, and Fragment V, figure 28) pre- 
sents the cycles, katuns, tuns, and uinals of the corresponding Initial Series 
number. The cycle coefficient (Ba u. h.) is missing, although it doubtless 
may be restored as 9. The cycle-sign itself is recorded in Ba |. h. and traces 
of the clasped hand on the lower part of the face may still be distinguished. 
The katun coefficient (Bd u. h.) is perfectly clear, but of unfamiliar form. 

The tun coefficient (ca u. h.) is unusual; the head-variant numeral 
is itself very clearly the death’s head, but this is preceded by a bar which 
ordinarily would have the value of 5, presumably 5+10, since 5X10, 7. ¢., 
uniting the two by multiplication, would give an impossible value for the 
tun coefficient. Leaving this point indeterminate for the present, however, 
let us continue the inspection of our text. 

The uinal-sign and coefficient in cb are perfectly clear as o uinals. Note 
the clasped hand denoting o in the coefficient. 

Unfortunately the next two glyph-blocks, 7. ¢., p and FE, are missing, 
both being on the missing Fragment T (see figure 28). These, doubtless, 
recorded the kins and day of the Initial Series and the first two glyphs of the 
Supplementary Series. ‘To compensate for this rather serious loss, however, 
the glyphs on Fragments W and X (figure 29 and plate 20, b) are unusually 
clear, and in a series of 10 consecutive characters they give sufficient data by 
which this altar may be dated. The first of these, Fa, is Glyph E of the 
Supplementary Series, and there follow in Fd, c, Ha, Hd, and 1a, Glyphs D, 
C, X, B, and A of the Supplementary Series, respectively, the last, Glyph A, 
here having a coefficient of 9. Next, in 1d follows the month-sign of the 
Initial Series terminal date, unusually clear as 13 Mol. Following this in 
ja is a well-known ending-sign, being almost identical with the forms used 
on Stele 12 and 2 (compare Ja with the next to last glyph in plate 17 and the 
third to last glyph in plate 18), and after this in yb, the glyph meaning “ End 
of a hotun.” Finally, in ka and kd (the latter on Fragment Y) is the day 12 
Ahau and another ending-sign. Fragment Z presents no decipherable 
glyphs, although ma is two katuns and md is a familiar grotesque head of 
unknown meaning. The last glyph-block, 0, that is on the left of the Initial 
Series introducing glyph, is on Fragment S again and has no decipherable 
signs. 

: Whatever the doubtful coefficients in the Initial Series number may be, 
there seems little doubt that we have recorded in 1)-] the statement that the 
month of the Initial Series terminal date is “13 Mol,” and further, that it 
fell on a hotun-ending. By referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found 
that the only hotun in Cycle 9 ending on a month position of 13 Mol within 


166 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


a range of about 360 years, was 9.11.15.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Mol, the next earlier 
occurrence being in 8.13.10.0.0, and the next later in 10.10.0.0.0, both 
impossible dates, so far as Copan is concerned, and both impossible here 
because the hotun-sign and not the lahuntun-sign is recorded. And finally, 
the record of the day 12 Ahau just after this in Ka may record the preceding 
katun-ending, 7. ¢., 9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh. Indeed, there is little doubt 
that 9.11.15.0.0 was the hotun recorded by this Initial Series, in spite of the 
irregularity of the tun coefficient, and the loss of the kin and day-signs. 
Let us turn again to our Initial Series, and see how these values for the 
katun, tun, and uinal coefficients agree with those actually recorded on 
Fragment V (plate 20, b). The uinal coefficient in cb u. h. is surely 0, which 
agrees with the value for the corresponding coefficient obtained above. 


The katun  coeffi- (7 cient (Bb u. h.) should be 11; unfortunately 
only two other occur- ~~ (: rences of the head for 11 are known, namely, 
the katun coefficient on | Lintel 2 at Piedras Negras and the katun 


coefficient on Stela6 at Yaxchilan YD. Although there ($ € appears to be 
no element common to both of (% these signs, both nevertheless 
are of the same type, namely, the normal human head, and to this 


extent the head in Bb u. h. may be said to resemble them. 

The tun coefficient (ca u. h.) is composed of a head variant, clearly 
the death’s head, denoting 10, preceded by a bar, possibly denoting 
5, as already suggested. If we may join these two elements by addition, 
1. €., 1O+5=15, forming a-composite numeral, we will have the tun coeffi- 
cient demanded by the corresponding Initial Series terminal date. Butsucha 
combination, 7. ¢., a bar-and-dot numeral joined with a head-variant num- 
eral, is a new feature in Maya notation, and before it can be accepted, even 
in the face of the very strong evidence presented by the hotun-ending date 
in 1bj, it is necessary to adduce other examples of its occurrence. Fortun- 
ately several such may be cited. ‘The customary way to have expressed the 
number 15 would have been either by 3 bars or, since all the other 
coefficients in this text are head-variant num- erals, by the head for 
10 + the head for 5 FAQe). Neither, however, IU was employed in the 
present instance, r=10 but instead a combination of the two seems to 
have been used. Fb 

One other instance of this kind has already been noted, namely, the tun 
coefficient of the Initial Serieson Stelar2. (See plate 17, a4, and pp. 135, 136.) 
Unfortunately this example is doubtful, since the numerical bar inclosed in 
an oval above the death’s head is partially effaced. If it is a bar at all, 
however, the parallel is complete between these two cases, both being tun 
coefficients in Initial Series and both expressing the same number, 15, in the 
same unusual way—a bar joined to a death’s head. 

Other examples, not in Initial Series, however, may be cited. The 
first and most striking of these is in the Supplementary Series from the 
Temple of the Cross at Palenque, but in order to bring this point out, it is 






oi oii . PLATE 19 


Je Co Ve 
(CTE) 
Sr ocd 


pws EN] Rs 
> = 2 < 





fe SE gt ae ity se 2 


st 
i @ 
ty 
uaa 
' 
i 
' 
1 
1 





RIPE tae keh bert 1 agarose ayer a SO wes et ow ’ 


MORLEY. 
PLATE 19 


va 
Weel ES S 


AT tings tenet ALE 
Tee Sgt ot 





Stela 3. Inscriptions on (a) the east side, and (b) the west side. Drawn from the original. 


Stela 5. Inscriptions on (c) the south side, and (d) the north side. Drawn from the original. | 


ECKERT ISTHO, CO., WASH.,0,.C, 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 167 


necessary to compare this text glyph by glyph with the Supplementary 
Series from the neighboring Temple of the Foliated Cross. In figure 30 these 
two Supplementary Series are shown side by side, the upper line being that 





Fic. 30.—Two Supplementary Series at Palenque, from: a-f, Temple of the Foliated Cross; 
a'-f’, Temple of the Cross. 


from the Temple of the Foliated Cross and the lower line that from the 
Temple of the Cross. Commencing at the right’ and reading from right to 
left, the last glyph in each line, f and f’, respectively, are the same, namely, 
Glyph A, the last glyph of the Supplementary Series, shown with a head- 
variant coefficient of 10 in f and with a bar-and-dot coefficient of 9 in f’.. The 
next glyphs (to the left), e¢ and ¢’, are also the same, being in each case the 
next to the last glyph of the Supplementary Series, Glyph B. The next 
glyphs, d and d’, are different, as would be expected. As the writer has 
shown elsewhere,’ the third position from the right in Supplementary 
Series is occupied by a number of different glyphs, hence the name variable 
glyph (1. e., Glyph X) by which the signs occupying this position have been 
designated. The next glyphs, c and c’, are the same, being Glyph C of the 
Supplementary Series, regularly Beads in the fourth place from, the right. 
Let us pass over the next glyph, J, in the upper line, and: ‘the next two, b”, 
b’, in the lower line, and come to the last glyph in each'litie,.a and: a”*respec- 
tively, which are the same, Glyph F of the Supplementary Series. Imme- 
diately preceding these signs in the two texts from which these passages are 
taken are the month-signs of their respective Initial Series terminal dates. 
In other words, barring the glyphs passed over, the signs in the two passages 
are the same and stand, moreover, in the same relative order to each other. 

Let us next examine the glyphs omitted in our preliminary inspection, 
b, b’, and b’’. The former, J, is a grotesque head standing on its end—a very 
unusual position for head-variants—with a coefficient of Io, 7. ¢., 2 bars. 
The right-hand glyph of the pair in the lower line, b’’, is exactly the same 
head as the one in J, and also stands on its end in exactly the same unusual 
manner, evidently a characteristic of the glyph, whatever it may be. In the 
lower line, however, at first sight it appears to have no coefficient. 





1 The regularity in the sequence of the glyphs of the Supplementary Series is more apparent reading from 
right to left than vice versa, for which reason this order is followed here. See Morley, 1916, p. 369. 
2 See Morley, 1916, pp. 374-376. 


168 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


This leaves but one glyph unexplained, 0’, 7. ¢., the one immediately 
preceding the foregoing. This is composed of a bar, 7. ¢., 5, prefixed to a very 
clear death’s head, which is in every way similar to the death’s heads repre- 
senting the number to found elsewhere. We would appear to have in this 
glyph, then, a composite numeral, a bar-and-dot 5 joined to a head-variant 
10 exactly as in the tun coefficients on the East Altar of Stela 5 and probably 
Stela 12. Compare Glyph 0’, figure 30, with ca u. h., plate 20, d, and it 
will be found that the parallel is complete. But we have already seen that 
in the latter case these are strong—indeed well-nigh irrefutable—reasons for 
believing that these two numerical elements are joined by addition, and 
not by multiplication, which, if true, would give for b’ the meaning 15, 7. ¢., 
5S+I10o=1I5. 

Moreover, the right-hand glyph, 0”, has no coefficient at all, whereas the 
same glyph in the upper line, 5, has a coefficient of 10. Therefore it seems 
not unlikely that Glyph b’ may be joined to b’’, making 15 times the gro- 
tesque head for the lower line instead of 10 times, as it is in the upper line. 
That these two numerals, one a bar-and-dot and the other a head-variant, 
are joined to each other by addition and to the glyphs they modify by 
multiplication, is probably true here. Moreover, such an arrangement 
completes the parallel between the upper and lower lines, since in this event 
there would then be only 6 glyphs in each of these Supplementary Series, 
and the fifth glyph in each, counting from the right, 7. ¢., b and b’b’’, would 
then be the same, having a coefficient of 10 in the upper line and of 15 in the 
lower line. 





Fig. 31.—Glyphs showing composite numerals from: a and g, Yaxchilan, Lintel 21; b, Yaxchilan, Lintel in 
Berlin Museum; c, Yaxchilan, Lintel 29; d, Palenque, Temple of the Cross; ¢, Copan, Stela 
12; f, Copan, East Altar of Stela 5. 


The other examples (see figure 31) are all from Supplementary Series 
at Yaxchilan, where use of this composite type of numeral seems to have 
been quite common. The first example (figure 31, a) is from Lintel 21, Struc- 
ture 22. Here a bar is prefixed to a death’s head, this composite numeral 
being attached to a sign which, the writer has shown elsewhere,' is a variant 
of the kin-sign. ‘The whole glyph would appear to record 15 kins. Notice 
should be taken of the five dots in the death’s head, also a characteristic of 
the death’s head in the Palenque text. (See figure 30, b’, and figure 31, g.) 

The second example (figure 31, 2) is froma lintel in the Berlin Museum. 
Again there is the same bar, here standing above the same death’s head; 








1 Morley, 1916, pp. 369, 385-387. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 169 


and again this glyph is attached to the same variant of the kin-sign, the 
meaning probably being 15 kins. 

The third example (figure 31, c) is from Lintel 29, Structure 10. In this 
case a variation has been introduced. ‘The bar, instead of being prefixed 
to a head, is prefixed to a sign, the principal element of which is five dots. 
Can this be a substitute for the death’s head, which has the same charac- 
teristic in figure 31, a, d, and g, a sort of glyphic synecdoche wherein a part, 
1. e., the five dots, is used for the whole, 7. ¢., the death’s head? At any 
rate, this glyph is again attached to the same variant of the kin-sign, and 
the writer has little hesitancy in reading the two characters as 15 kins. 

The foregoing six examples, 7. ¢., including the one from Palenque and 
the two from Copan, d, ¢, and f, figure 31, respectively, are all composite 
forms for the number 15, that is, single bars prefixed to death’s heads. ‘There 
is one example, however (figure 31, g), of a composite 17, which would seem 
to indicate that other numbers beside 15 could be formed in this same 
unusual way. This is also from Lintel 21, Structure 22 at Yaxchilan, and 
has a bar-and-dot numeral 7 prefixed to a death’s head with the same five 
dots in the upper part of the latter, the resulting number being 17. 

Reviewing these seven examples, two from Copan, four from Yaxchilan, 
and one from Palenque, it will be seen that they are fairly well scattered 
geographically (plate 1), and moreover, that insofar as three of them are 
concerned (figure 31, a, d, and g) the dots in the head appear to be an 
important characteristic. They constitute, the writer believes, sufficient 
evidence to prove the existence of these composite numerals, and to demon- 
strate their use in certain rare instances. Indeed, in the present case the 
burden of proof would certainly appear to rest upon those who decline to 
recognize in ca u. h., plate 20, b, the numeral 15, irregularly as it is 
there expressed, since the record of the month-sign, 13 Mol, and the “‘ End 
of a hotun”’ in 1a~j render any other reading practically impossible. When 
we attempt to explain why this unusual variant should have been used in 
this particular text, however, we enter upon uncertain ground. The follow- 
ing possible explanation, therefore, is advanced only as a suggestion. 

The sculptor of this monument knew that if he used the head-variant 
for 15 he would have to carve a death’s head with a tun-sign for its head- 
dress. Inasmuch as all the period glyphs and their coefficients are head- 
variants, in this text it is probable on artistic grounds that a simple bar-and- 
dot numeral 15 could not have been contemplated here. On the other hand, 
to have recorded a head-variant 15 in the space available would have resulted 
in an unsightly contraction (a flattening) of the death’s head, to make room 
for the tun head-dress, which would have thrown it badly out of line with 
the heads in the cycle, katun, uinal, and kin coefficients. In short, artistic 
considerations may have weighed so heavily against such a violation of 
symmetry that the sculptor took the only other course open to him, namely, 
that of recording the number Io as a head variant and then prefixing a bar 
to it, 7. ¢., 5, making 15, as required by the calculations. 


LO THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Such a departure from regular practices must necessarily have been due 
to an unusual circumstance, perhaps such as this, and if this explanation 
really explains the situation, it is but another example of that broad prin- 
ciple found applying throughout the Maya hieroglyphic writing, namely, 
the extraordinarily coercive influence of artistic considerations in glyph 
delineation.' 

But after all, the task of accounting for this unusual departure from 
regularly established practices is not so important as the recognition of its 
existence here, from which, in view of the decisive evidence presented, we 
can hardly escape, and we may therefore accept 9.11.15.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Mol 
as the date of this altar. A summary of the text follows: 


A Fragments S, R, and U, Initial Series introducing glyph 


Ba Fragment V 9 cycles 

Bb Fragment V 11 katuns 

ca Fragment V I5 tuns 

cb Fragment V O uinals 

pa Fragment T (missing) (o kins) 

pb Fragment T (missing) (4 Ahau) 

1b Fragment X 13 Mol 

j Fragment X End of a hotun 

Ka Fragment X 12 Ahau (perhaps 9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh) 


The above date is the same as that on Stela 1 just described, and this 
chronologic coincidence at once raises the interesting question as to whether 
or not this altar may originally have been associated with Stela 1 instead of 
Stela 5. It will be shown in the description of the latter that it was not 
erected until 35 or 40 years later than either of the two altars now asso- 
ciated with it, which might be taken as indicating that neither was designed 
originally for use with it. Similarly, the altar now associated with Stela 1 
marks a later hotun-ending, 7. ¢., 9.12.0.0.0 (see p. 176), than the stela itself. 
It therefore appears not unlikely that the East Altar of Stela 5 itself may 
have been associated with Stela 1 originally. The points in favor of this 
association are summarized below: 


1. The same hotun-ending 9.11.15.0.0 is unmistakably recorded on both. 
. The stela with which this altar is now associated (Stela 5) was not erected 
until 40 years after the date on this altar. 

3. The altar now associated with Stela 1 similarly records a later hotun-ending 
than Stela 1, and one, moreover, which is also recorded on another 
altar, namely, the West Altar of Stela 5. (See p. 173.) 

4. Finally, all the other altars of this type, except the altar of Stela 13 and 
the altar of Stela 19,? which is fragmentary, namely, the altars of 
Stela E, 1, and I and the West Altar of Stela 5, record hotun-endings; 
and in the case of two, the altars of E and I, they are still associated 
with their original stelz. 


iS) 


This whole question, of course, hinges upon whether Stela 1 is in situ 
where it was first found at the Main Structure, or whether it was carried 





1 Morley, 1915, pp. 23, 24. 
2 As already pointed out (pp. 145, 146), this altar probably brought the Initial Series of the stela with which it is 
associated, 7. ¢., 9.10.19.15.0, forward to the next hotun-ending, 1. ¢., 9.11.0.0.0, 


PLATE 20 


cee ee ee mee oo re we ee we ee ee 







- == 4 p= -- 5 
{| 
a : 
a | 
tant | 

Peay 


Nee ee ee ee Le 











eee eee eee ee ee ee eee eee 


———— ee im fore ae ae see nseer onl mec tear amie ; 


-~+ + 
| ! { 
\ ' 
: i 
\ ! | 
} j 
ral 
{ fy 
! iE ar 


ees yy ee 


ee ee ee ee ee — aS ee ee ee oe ee ae 


en 





PLATE 20 


MORLEY. 








Part of the inscription on the periphery. Drawn from the original. 


West altar of Stela 5. 











y i 
{ ! 
| | 
| | 
| 
| | 
| 
| | 
| | 
| l 
i tie Seem ree 
a 
| 
| 
| 

\ | 
| | 
| 
! 

| : 
| | 
iz 





b 


Part of the inscription on the periphery. Drawn from the original. 


East altar of Stela 5. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. Be | 


thither in ancient times from somewhere else, its altar at the same time or 
later being removed to Group 8, where it now stands. There can be little 
doubt but that Stela 1 was erected on the western slope of Mound 9 when 
the latter was built, since the foundations of the monument extend down into 
the body of the mound. The Great Plaza to the north, however, was cer- 
tainly not started until at least 10 years later, and possibly even longer. 
Perhaps this suggestion should be developed no farther than to point out 
the possibility that inasmuch as Stela 1 and the East Altar of Stela 5 both 
record the same hotun-ending, they may have been associated with each 
other, at Mound 9, and possibly even at some other group, although the 
latter contingency appears very unlikely. 


West ALTAR OF STELA 5. 


Provenance: Probably not in situ. Originally may have been 
associated, together with the altar of Stela 1, with 
some stela now missing. Now 1 kilometer west of the 
Main Structure, in front of the west face of Stela 5 
at Group 8. (See plate 3.) 


Date: g.12.0.0.0 10 Ahau 8 Yaxkin.! 
Text, drawing: plate 20, a. 
Reference: Spinden, 1913, p. 161, and table 1. 


The West Altar of Stela 5 is 1.68 meters in diameter and 63 cm. high. 
It is broken into one large piece (Fragment X, figure 32), which represents 
more than five-sixths of the altar, and 
four or five smaller pieces, of which two, 
Fragments Y and Z, were recovered dur- 
ing the examination of the stone wall 
referred to under the preceding monu- 
ment. One of the latter, Fragment Y, 
was of great importance, since its dis- 
covery alone made possible the reading 
here suggested for this Initial Series. 

The inscription is presented upon the 
periphery, the top and bottom being plain. 
(See plate 20, a.) The glyph-blocks are 
arranged in two horizontal rows, which fy, 52—Top of West Altar of Stela 5, show- 
completely encircle the stone, there being ing the number of fragments into 

: which it is broken. 
16 glyph-blocks in each row or 32 for the 
entire text. This is the same presentation as that on the altar of Stela E, 
and, as in the case of the latter, the order of reading the glyph-blocks is 
from left to right and top to bottom in pairs of columns. 

The inscription opens on Fragment X (see the star in figure 32), with the 
Initial Series introducing glyph at a1, plate 20, a; and following this in Bia 
are recorded g cycles and in Bib ? katuns, the katun coefficient being surely 











1 For other monuments recording this hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


172 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT -COPAN. 


above 5 and probably under 11. The tun-sign and coefficient in A2a are 
partially effaced, although enough remains of the latter to show that it must 
have been either 14 or 19, 7. ¢., either 4 dots and 2 bars or 4 dots and 3 bars. 

The uinal-sign, a2) |. h., is entirely effaced, but very fortunately its 
coefficient, A2b u. h., is well preserved. This is a head-variant numeral, 
showing the fleshless lower jaw clearly. The rest of the head has no other 
death’s-head characteristics, and it would seem as though this number must 
be from 13 to 19 inclusive.! Of these, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 may probably 
be eliminated, since this head resembles none of the known forms for these 
numbers, and there are left only 14 and 17. The head in a2 u. h. looks 
very much like the latter. Note the scroll under the eye, and the large 
ornament which may be a continuation of it in front of the forehead, the 
typical pupil, and the Roman nose. Compare this head with the forms for 
17 shown in Morley, 1915, figure 53, or Bowditch, 1910, plate 17. The best 
reading for the uinal coefficient, therefore, is 17, and next 14, although 
IO, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19, and even o, should be considered as remoter possi- 
bilities in the order named. 

The kin-sign and coefficient at B2a are very clear. The latter is surely 
either II, 12, or 13, with either 11 or 12 preferable to 13. As will appear 
later, this number can only be 11. The next glyph, B20, is Glyph G, the first 
sign of the Supplementary Series. The next glyph-block, c1, is missing, all 
except a small part of its right-hand edge, which appears on the left side of 
Fragment Y. Although pi ts much effaced, it doubtless presented Glyphs 
X and B of the Supplementary Series.? c2 is missing, all but its right-hand 
edge, which shows a part of the day-sign of the Initial Series terminal date; 
the last glyph of the Supplementary Series doubtless was at c2a. 

The most important glyph on Fragment Y is p2a, the month of the 
Initial Series terminal date. In spite of some little weathering, this may be 
surely identified as either 9 Mol or 14 Mol, with the latter as the preferable 
reading. Gathering together these data, we have for this Initial Series: 


AI Initial Series introducing glyph 

Bid 9 cycles 

BD 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 katuns 

Azad 14 or Ig tuns 

A2b- 17, 14, '10,03,.15.10,.10,.Fo,ono-umals 
Boa it kins? 

C2b ? 

D2a 9 or 14 Mol 





1 While the numerals 13 to 19 inclusive invariably have the fleshless lower jaw, with the exception of 13, for 
which there are two forms, they very rarely show other death’s-head characteristics like the head for 10, which, 
in addition to the fleshless lower jaw, usually has the truncated nose, prominent upper teeth, and large bony eye- 
socket. 

2 As shown in plate 20, a, pt looks more like Glyph A of the Supplementary Series than Glyphs B or X._ This 
is probably due to faulty drawing, as Glyph A was almost certainly at c2a, now lost. This fragment (Y) is in very 
bad condition. 

§ Our inspection of the text showed that the kin-coefficient might be either 11, 12, or 13, but as the month- 
coefficient in D2a is surely 9 or 14, the kin-coefficient can only be 11, since 11 is the only one of these three numbers 
which, if counted forward from a day Ahau (i. ¢., 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu from which all Initial Series start; see Morley, 
1915, p. 136), can possibly reach a month-coefficient of 9 or 14. The other two readings, therefore, 12 and 13, are 
impossible values here. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. mies 


It can be found by calculation that there are only seven possible dates 
in Cycle 9 which fulfill all the given conditions, namely: 
(owe i441, 6:Chuen’” 9 Mol 
(2) 9715-14. 9:11 23\Chuen™ 9’ Mol 
(7) 50-14-'4.14. 10), 7.Chuens -9.Mol 
(4) 9.15.19. 2.11 5 Chuen’ 9g Mol 
ts) 9. G.19.12,11 2 Chuen 14 Mol 
(6) 9. 7.19.17.11 9 Chuen 14 Mol 
(7) 9.15.14. 1.11 5 Chuen 14 Mol 

Before choosing between these, let us continue the examination of our 
text, since it is obvious that none of the above dates can end hotuns of the 
Long Count, and, consequently, none are likely to have been the contem- 
poraneous date of this altar. 

Unfortunately the next glyph-block, £1, is entirely effaced, and the 
next five, Fi-G1, G2, are missing. The other half of the altar is very badly 
weathered, so that it is impossible to make out the details of any of the 
following glyphs: H1, H2-m1. Beginning with nib, however, they are some- 
what better preserved. 2d is a sign usually connected with the terminal 
dates of Secondary Series, and N2 is a Calendar Round date. In spite of some 
weathering here, the day 10 Ahau can clearly be distinguished in nza |. h., 
and the month 8 Yax or 8 Yaxkin in N2b._ Following this in o1a is an ending- 
sign, and in 010, the day 11, 12, or 13 Ahau. 

Although the hotun glyph itself is wanting, it is fair to infer from ante- 
cedent probability that this date 1o Ahau 8 Yax or to Ahau 8 Yaxkin ended 
some hotun of the Long Count. Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be 
found that no hotun or even a tun ended on the former date, whereas not 
only a hotun, but a katun as well, ended on the latter, namely, 9.12.0.0.0 
1o Ahau 8 Yaxkin. Moreover, there are two other points in the original, 
which strongly indicate that the latter is the correct reading here: 

1. [he month-sign in N20 is almost certainly Yaxkin and not Yax. Not only 
do traces of the wing element appear to the nght, but also the upper 
point of the kin element may be distinguished just below the Yax 
element; and 

2. If the day in o10 is 12 Ahau, as seems probable, it would indicate the pre- 
ceding katun-ending, exactly as in the case of the East Altar of 
Stela 5, namely, 9.11.0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Ceh. 


These several points taken together probably establish the date of this 
altar as having been 9.12.0.0.0 ro Ahau 8 Yaxkin. 

The next point to determine is the Initial Series of this altar, for which 
our preliminary inspection of the text gave us seven possible readings. 
Since the contemporaneous date of the monument is probably 9.12.0.0.0, 
all but the fifth and sixth readings above may probably be eliminated, as 
they are from 14 to 74 years later than the hotun this altar was erected to 
commemorate. But in addition to this, all of them are open to one or more 
other serious objections which, even in the absence of the one just given, 
would otherwise eliminate them. 


174 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


In the case of the first, the uinal coefficient can not be 4; in the second, 
it can not be 9; in the fourth, it can not be 2; and in the third, although it 
might be 14, it is better as 17. Again, another point against all four is that 
the month-coefficient recorded is possibly better as 14 than as 9. Finally, 
in the case of the last, although its month-coefficient is 14, its uinal-coefficient 
is 1, and it also must be eliminated. Similarly the fifth value above, although | 
historically probable in that it is prior to 9.12.0.0.0 and its month-coefficient, 
14, must be eliminated because its uinal-coefficient is 12. This leaves as the 
only possible date for this Initial Series the sixth reading above, namely, 
g.7.19.17.11 9 Chuen 14 Mol. Three points in the text itself strongly favor 
this reading. In the first place, the uinal coefficient is very much better as 
17 than anything else; indeed, in our preliminary inspection this value was 
given a strong preference over every other. In the second place, this reading 
is only 9 days earlier than a katun-ending in the Long Count, 7. ¢., 9.8.0.0.0 
5 Ahau 3 Chen; and in the third place, from what little remains of the day 
of the Initial Series terminal date in c2d, it is evident that its coefficient 
must have been above 5, which eliminates the fourth, fifth, and seventh 
readings. All things taken into consideration, therefore, we are probably 
justified in accepting the sixth reading above as the correct value for this 
Initial Series. A summary of the text follows: 

A1I-B24, C2b, D2a G17 19.1711 g Chuen 14 Mol 


N2 (9.12. 0. 0. 0) 10 Ahau 8 Yaxkin 
O1a Ending (previous katun) 
o1b : (9.11. 0. 0. ©) 12 Ahau [8 Ceh] 


The Initial Series date is of course too early to be the contemporaneous 
date of the altar on stylistic grounds; but not so with the closing date, which 
we have already seen was much later. Probably one or more Secondary 
Series in the effaced glyphs H1, H2—-m1 connected this rather early Initial 
Series with the contemporaneous date some 8o years later. 

The latter date is still some 35 years earlier than the date of Stela 5, 
with which it is now associated. This probably indicates that this altar was 
originally associated with some other stela; but as this question can not be 
properly presented until after the altar of Stela 1 has been described, further 
discussion of the point will be deferred until later. 


ALTAR OF STELA I. 


Provenance: Probably not in situ. Originally may have been 
associated, together with the West Altar of Stela 5, 
with some stela now missing. Now in front of Stela 1 
on the west side of Mound g at the Main Structure. 
(See plate 6.) 
Date: g.12.0.0.0 roAhau 8 Yaxkin.! 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 21. 
(b) drawing: plate 21. 
Gordon, 1896, figure 6. 
References: Gordon, 1896, p. 41. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 66. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 161, 164, and table 1. 


1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 175 


The altar of Stela 1 is about the size of the East and West Altars of 
Stela 5.!_ It now lies broken in two pieces in front (west) of Stela 1 on the 
western side of Mound 9 at the Main Structure. Says Maudslay in describ- 
ing it: “A circular altar with an almost obliterated inscription was lying 
beside the fallen stela (1).’” 

It is indeed very fortunate, therefore, that the only parts of this text 
sufficiently preserved to decipher (see plate 21) should be the beginning and 
end, part of the Initial Series and the closing Period Ending date. 

The inscription is presented on the periphery in a single band of glyphs, 
which, however, does not entirely encircle the stone, as in the case of the 
drum-shaped altars previously described, there being a blank space perhaps 
a meter long at the back. Of the eleven glyph-blocks into which this band 
is divided, two are completely effaced, two others almost so, and three others 
very badly damaged. 

The order of reading within the individual glyph-blocks, at least in the 
case of the second, third, and fourth, B, c, and p respectively, 7. ¢., those 
presenting the Initial Series number, is different from that on the East 
Altar of Stela 5, the only other altar showing the same glyphic presentation. 
There, it will be remembered, the order within the glyph-blocks was from 
top to bottom and left to right, as in the case of Stela 3; here, on the other 
hand, the order is just the reverse, being first from left to right and then 
from top to bottom. 

Bearing this difference in mind, let us proceed with the decipherment of 
the text. a is the Initial Series introducing glyph, and B u. h. the cycle- 
sign and coefficient. The clasped hand on the lower part of the face in Bb 
u. h. clearly indicates the former, and the dot on the lower part of the face 
in Ba u. h. indicates the usual cycle coefficient of 9. 

The katun-sign and coefficient in B |. h. are equally clear, the latter, 
Ba |. h., being 9. (Note the three dots in the double circle on the lower part 
of the cheek.) The next glyph-block, c, unfortunately, is badly weathered, 
though happily both of the coefficients may be distinguished with little 
difficulty. (See plate 21, cau. h. and cal. h.) Both are alike and prob- 
ably record the numeral 10. (Note the fleshless lower jaw and prominent 
upper teeth, both characteristic of the head variant for 10.) Compare these 
two glyphs with the katun coefficient of Stela 12, for example (plate 17, B3a). 

The kin-sign and coefficient in p u. h. are entirely effaced, and the 
day-sign and coefficient in p |. h. practically so; and with the complete 
destruction of the next two glyph-blocks, & and F, and the subsequent loss of 
the month of the Initial Series terminal date, the last means of dating this 
Initial Series to the exact day are gone. However, even in spite of the loss 
of the kin coefficient, the other coefficients are sufficiently clear to date it 








1 Unfortunately the dimensions of this altar were not secured. The drawing in plate 21 shows that it is 36 
cm. high, and the diameter is doubtless between 1.5 and 2 meters. 
2 Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 66. 


176 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


within 19 days, as 9.9.10.10.?.. Furthermore, since the kin coefficient is 
usually o, we may probably decipher this Initial Series further as 9.9.10.10.0 
7 Ahau 13 Zac, with 19 days as the maximum error possible. 

This date is neither a hotun-ending nor even a tun-ending, however, 
and for that reason, if for no other, it is hardly to be considered as the con- 
temporaneous date of the altar. Continuing the inspection of our text, the 
remains of a Secondary Series are clearly to be distinguished in Gbu. The 
uinal-sign shows very clearly in Ha and part of a tun or katun sign in Hb. 
Unfortunately the coefficients are destroyed. In1is a Calendar Round date, 
>? ? ? Yaxkin, the second doubtful element probably being the day- 
sign Ahau. Finally, in J is recorded very clearly and unmistakably ‘The 
End of Katun 12.”” The ending-sign 1s the familiar hand, with the tassel-like 
postfix and subfix with curl infix, and the Katun 12 itself has the familiar 
ending superfix or prefix. 

By referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that Katun 12 of 
Cycle 9 ended on the date 10 Ahau 8 Yaxkin, viz, 9.12.0.0.0 ro Ahau 8 
Yaxkin, which agrees exactly with the month-sign recorded in 10, as far as 
it is preserved; and in spite of the fact that both of the coefficients are 
missing, we are doubtless justified in restoring them as Io and 8 respec- 
tively, and in assigning this altar to the katun-ending 9.12.0.0.0. 

It seems probable that there was but one Secondary Series on this 
altar, because a Supplementary Series of the usual length, 7. ¢., 7 or 8 glyphs, 
would fill most, if not all, of & and F, and there would have been room for 
no more glyphs between F and cd, which begins the Secondary Series noted 
above, 7. ¢., GbH. Therefore, if the coefficients of this Secondary Series had 
been preserved, we could probably have obtained the exact value of the 
Initial Series terminal date by subtraction. As it is, we may possibly fill 
in these missing coefficients as follows: 2.9.8.0, viz: 

9. 9.10100. <7 Ahane 4, Zac ty) 
2 Mie # Fat fe 
g.12. 0.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Yaxkin 

The last glyph-block, x, is undecipherable, although kal. h. is the head 
of God C, which also appears on the altar of Stela | at Hb. (See plate 22, c.) 
A summary of this text follows: 


A-Da_ 9g. 9.10.10.0 7 Ahau 13 Zac (?) 
? 


Gbu 2L9NB.0 
I g.12. 0. 0.0 10 Ahau 8 Yaxkin 
J End of Katun 12 


We have seen that the East Altar of Stela 5 and Stela 1 both record the 
same hotun-ending, namely, 9.11.15.0.0, and therefore originally may have 
been associated with each other. Furthermore, we have seen that the date 
of the West Altar of Stela 5 is the same as the date of this altar, namely, 
9.12.0.0.0. It therefore seems not improbable that these last two altars 
also may have been formerly associated with some stela which was erected 
to commemorate this hotun-ending. It must be admitted, however, that 
such a stela has yet to be found. 


MORLEY. 














-CKERT LITHO, £O0., WASH.,C.c. 


- 


ap: 
MARAT 
I 


* ee 





Altar of Stelar. Inscription on the periphery, Drawn from the original. 


PLATE 21 





ae | 
ie 4 
oe 


cable Wa Leis rs tam - pre ® “ La d as ; ; ’ ig $4 
ime, Care RAG ee ‘ ra ot ie Le 6 Be 2 4 an ef A yj : i ae 





ee eae 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. LT 


Perhaps the fact that we have two altars dating from this hotun may 
indicate that no stela recording this date was ever erected. ‘That is, the 
sculptural effort usually expended in the erection of a stela and its accom- 
panying altar may in this particular hotun have been devoted to the making 
of two altars instead. It is very unlikely that a stela marking this particular 
hotun may still lie buried somewhere in the valley. What is more probable 
is that it has been destroyed and its two altars devoted to other uses, one 
being placed in front of Stela 1 and the other in front of Stela 5. 


STELA li 


Provenance: In a niche or recess in the western steps of the platform 
at the east side of the Great Plaza at the Main Struc- 
ture. The associated altar is just in front of the 
stela, 7. ¢., on its west side. (See plate 6.) 


Date: g.12.5.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Xul. 
Text, (a) ae Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 62-64. 
(b) drawing: plate 22, c (altar only).! 


Maudslay, zbid., plate 65. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, plate facing p. 151 (front only). 


References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 136, 140, 243, and table 31. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 131. 
Gordon, 1896, pp. 35, 36. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 52, 53. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. I, p. 757. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 157, 161, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 151. 
Thomas, 1904, p. 223. 


Stela I stands in a niche or recess in the terrace, which forms the eastern 
side of the Great Plaza. That it was erected here before the construction 
of this terrace is evident from the fact that the terrace is built around the 
monument. 

This offset is of considerable importance, therefore, in determining the 
age of the Great Plaza, since the date of Stela I, which made it necessary, 
is known to be 9.12.5.0.0, and therefore the Great Plaza must have been 
built or laid out at some later period. 

The front of the monument is sculptured with a human figure, the most 
elaborate yet encountered, and the back and sides are inscribed with glyphs, 
on the basis of which arrangement it may be assigned to Class 4. "It is 2.76 
meters high, 84 cm. wide, and 58 cm. thick. When Stephens visited Copan 
in 1839, it was entire and i situ,” but when Maudslay went there forty years 
later, it had been broken and the upper part had fallen forward, though the 
base was still in position. 

In front of the stela a cruciform chamber was discovered by the Pea- 
body Museum Expedition, like those underneath Stele 7,1, M, and C. This 
was found to contain five beautifully painted pieces of pottery, two being 








1The title of plate 22, c incorrectly reads Altar of Stela 1, instead of Altar of Stela I. 

2“Tt stands at the foot of a wall of steps with only the head and a part of the breast rising above the earth. 
The rest is buried and probably as perfect as the portion which is now visible. When we first discovered it, it 
was buried up to the eyes.” (Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 151) It is there described as Statue T. 


178 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


of cylindrical shape and decorated with representations of the human figure, 
which are now in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge.! 

The associated altar is of the drum-shaped type and stands directly 
in front of the stela. It has a single band of glyphs which extends clear 
around the periphery. 

The text on the stela opens with an Initial Series introducing glyph in 
Al-B2, and the corresponding Initial Series number follows in a3—Bs, As. 
This records the date 9.12.3.14.0 5 Ahau 8 Uo as follows: 


A1-B2 Initial Series introducing glyph 


A3 g cycles 
B3 12 katuns 
Aq 3 tuns 
B4 14 uinals 
AS o kins 
BS 5 Ahau 


A8 (8 Uo) effaced 


It is all clear, with the exception of the month-part (as), which is 
unfortunately effaced. 

The north side of the monument opens with the date 10 Ahau 13 Yax, 
Chen, Zac, or Ceh (c1), the uncertainty as to the month-sign arising from 
the effacement of its prefix. These four dates occurred in Cycle 9 nearest 
the Initial Series of this monument as follows: 

9.12.7.4.0 10 Ahau 13 Chen. g.12.19.9.0 10 Ahau 13 Zac 
9.11.7.0.0° 10 Ahau-13 Yax g.11.19.5.0 10 Ahau 13 Ceh 

Of these, only two, the second and fourth, appear to have anything 
which may be urged in their favor. For example, the second, 9.11.7.0.0, 
ends a tun of the Long Count, always a recommendation for any date. The 
last, however, 9.11.19.5.0, 1s not only the nearest to the Initial Series, but is 
also exactly 1 tonalamatl, or 260 days, before the nearest katun-ending 
(g.12.0.0.0), for which reasons it has been selected in preference to the others. 

In co there is a distance-number composed of 10.8, the kin-coefficient 
being expressed in a very unusual manner If this is counted for- 
ward from 10 Ahau 13 Ceh, the date reached will be 10 Lamat 16 
Zotz. The day 10 Lamat is recorded in c7a very clearly, but c7b 
is not 16 Zotz or any month-sign in fact, and it is evident that the month- 
sign has been suppressed here. The remaining glyph-blocks on this side are 
effaced. Using the Initial Series suggested above for 10 Ahau 13 Ceh, the 
Initial Series of 10 Lamat 16 Zotz may be calculated therefrom as follows: 





g.11.19. 5.0 10 Ahau 13 Ceh 
10.8 
9.11.19.15.8 10 Lamat 16 Zotz 


This distance-number is just four-fifths of a tonalamatl, and brings the 
count up to within one-fifth of a tonalamatl (52 days) of a katun-ending. 
Because of this coincidence, which could hardly be accidental, and because 





1 Gordon, 1896, p. 36. 





i 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 179 


it is the nearest to the Initial Series of the stela as already stated, the writer 
believes the date recorded in C1 is 9.11.19.5.0 10 Ahau 13 Ceh and the date 
in C7, 9.11.19.15.8 10 Lamat (16 Zotz). 

The south side of Stela I shows some familiar glyphs, but none of calen- 
dric significance so far as known, except perhaps the lower part of p2a 
which may possibly be the Cauac variant of the tun-sign. This text has 
15 +9+9=33 glyph-blocks, the Initial Series introducing glyph occupying 
the space of 4 glyph-blocks. 

The altar of this monument, as already explained, continues the inscrip- 
tion on the stela. Two bands at right angles to each other cross over the 
center of the top and extend down over the sides, dividing the periphery 
into four quadrants of 3 glyph-blocks each, or 12 in all. As each glyph- 
block has 2 glyphs, there are 24 glyphs on the altar and 45 glyph-blocks in the 
entire text, » (oee-plate 22, “c.) 

The text commences with the first glyph-block of the present northwest 
quadrant,! (a, plate 22, c), only a small part of which is preserved. Enough 
remains, however, to show that it presents the introducing glyphs of a 
Secondary Series, which follows immediately in B and ca. In spite of some 
effacement in the former, the coefficients are still clear, and this number is 
surely 1.4.0. The last glyph in this quadrant, cb, is the day 3 Ahau, and 
following this in the first glyph of the next quadrant, ba, is 3 Xul, and in the 
next, pb, “the end of a hotun.”’ The meaning of these last three glyphs is 
perfectly clear, namely, that on the date 3 Ahau 3 Xul a hotun of the Long 
Count came to an end. 

Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that only one hotun in 
Cycle 9 came to an end on this date, namely, 9.12.5.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Xul, and 
this hotun, moreover, is only 1.4.0 later than the Initial Series of Stela I. 
But we have just seen that this latter number was recorded in B—ca, and the 
meaning here, therefore, is unmistakable. The Secondary Series on the 
associated altar brings the Initial Series terminal date of the stela—the 
latter not a hotun-ending—forward to the next hotun-ending, 7. ¢., 9.12.5.0.0, 
which fact is actually declared in pb. The relation of these dates follows: 


Stela I at-B5, a8 —s- 9.12.3.14.0 5 Ahau 8 Uo 


Altar Ba-ca I. 4.0 
ch, Da 9.12.5. 0.0 3 Ahau 3 Xul 
bb End of a hotun 


The next glyph-block, £, presents a Calendar Round date 8 Ahau 8 Uo, 
all being perfectly regular except the month-coefficient. This is presented 
in an oval, the right half of which has disappeared, but since one 
bar and the left dot still show very clearly, this coefh- 7-=5 cient can only 
have been 6, 7, 8, or 9. But since the day-sign is Ce surely Ahau, 
and since Ahau can only have 3, 8, 13, or 18 as its corresponding month-coeffi- 
cients, the. month-coefficient here recorded must have been 8. 











This altar has probably been shifted somewhat from its original position. When examined, the the first glyph 
in plate 22, c, designated hereafter aa was the first in the northwest quadrant. This same glyph appears at the 
extreme left in Maudslay’s photograph of this altar (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 62, b). 


180 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The nearest occurrence of 8 Ahau 8 Uo to any of the dates either on 
Stela I or its altar was 9.13.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo, which is probably the value 
intended here, although why this katun should have been recorded is diffi- 
cult to say. Possibly it was desired to show the ending-date of the current 
katun; at all events, that date is recorded. The coefficient of the month- 
sign in Eb is exactly like that of the kin-sign on the north side of this stela, 
ca, which is not only 8, but is also presented in the same kind of a cartouche. 

The next glyph, Fa, is partially effaced; it may have been the head- 
variant numeral 13, since Fb may possibly be the katun-sign. If so, it declares 
the particular katun coming to an end on the Calendar Round date in the 
preceding glyph-block. 

The first two glyph-blocks of the next quadrant, G and H, appear to be 
non-calendrical, ca |. h. and ud are the signs for God C. Following this 
in 1) is a kin-sign with its coefficient effaced. The best value of the latter 
would seem to be between 6 and Io inclusive, 7. ¢., more than one bar and 
less than two bars and one dot. 

The first glyph-block of the last quadrant, J, is very clearly a Calendar 
Round date, ? Chuen ¢ Pop, both the coefficients most unfortunately having 
been destroyed. All the twenty-one possible occurrences of the day-sign 
Chuen in the month Pop within the extremes of the dates recorded on this 
stela and its altar, 7. ¢., 9.11.19.5.0 and 9.13.0.0.0, are given below: 


O.F1.8O:12e11 5 Chuen 19 Pop 
9.12. 0.12.11 I pg re Se 


Q:E20T A231 AYO eee ees 
Come Grey op OOM: toned aie 
OQ. Bs 9s15sk1 Orvis Chk a 
O12. A131 5 pea Wi 
Gil Zep yak gett I SO 
Q-LZ2 ORT) kor aay eee 
Aso0 12g LAst 1 Vis ee ee 
9.12. 8.14.11 oy pe ee 
Gli 22: T4iTt 5 aero One, 
g.12.10.14.11 Ie reetars 
ra oa ae a ben geen (ob? ey 
BicG:82-12 15-11) 613) eee 
OTRIF 1ST OAS Fe 
OG-12.1TAstesPt Perth We ae be 
O.12315 06.11 B yae fe iy ae 
9.12.16.16.11 4a, ees 
CPO1 2:17: 16.17 pk? Ae ae 
g.12.18.16.11 Oise PUleeaa 
DiO:12-50.17. 11 LZ Oe 


It seems highly probable therefore, without, however, being certain, 
that one of the above dates was recorded in J. 

Returning to our text once more, it will be seen that the day-sign 
coefficient in ja can only be either 11, 12, or 13, since it is surely composed 
of two bars and one, two, or three dots,! which eliminates at once all but 
A, B, C, and D of the above possibilities; and of these, the last, D, is by far 
the more likely date to have been recorded here. 








1 The day-sign coefficients only run from 1 to 13 inclusive. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 181 


To begin with, it is only 9 days earlier than the katun-ending recorded 
in E; and furthermore, precisely this very number of kins may be recorded 
in the glyph immediately preceding this Calendar Round date, 7. ¢., in 1); 
at least, a kin-sign is recorded there, and the best values for its effaced coeffi- 
cient are between 6 and Io inclusive. The fact that we probably have in 
1b a distance-number composed of 9 kins, which, if counted forward from 
9.12.19.17.11 12 Chuen 19 Pop will reach 9.13.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo, the date in 
Eb, makes the last reading above by far the best. The next glyph, x, although 
partially effaced, appears to have been an ending-sign; at least its main 
element is the hand. The last glyph-block, L, is undecipherable. 

If the above reading of the Calendar Round date in J 1s correct, there 
exists an interesting relationship between this date and the Initial Series 
on the West Altar of Stela 5, namely, the former is exactly 5 katuns, a quarter 
of a cycle later than the latter, viz: 

Initial Series of West Altar of Stela 5 9. 7.19.17.11 9 Chuen 14 Mol 


goto cet 
Altar of StelarI = 9.12.19.17.11 12 Chuen 19 Pop 


The relationship is so unique that it may possibly be ascribed to chance, 
but as different katun anniversaries of dates other than those ending tuns, 
hotuns, lahuntuns, or katuns of the Long Count are known to have been 
recorded elsewhere,! it is not improbable that this relationship may be due 
to intention rather than to chance. 


StelaI cr O:11.19.\5.'0 “torAhaw 17 Ceh 
C6 10. 8 
c7a g.11.19.15. 8 10 Lamat (16 Zotz) 


(3.16.12) undeclared 
AI-Bs, AS —s-_: Q. 12. 3.14. O 5 Ahau (8 Uc) (Initial Series) 


Altar BCa Ec4s0 
cb, Da ale ees. 3 Ahau 3 Xul 
pb End of a hotun 


(14.17.11) undeclared 


J g.12.19.17.11 12 Chuen 19 Pop (?) 
1b 9 ? 

E 9.1320. Oho 8 Ahau 8 Uo 

F End of Katun 13? 


A study of the foregoing develops a possible reason for the record of 
g.13.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo on this altar. It will be noted that the month part of 
the Initial Series terminal date is also 8 Uo; therefore there is an exact num- 
ber of years of 365 days each between these two dates, sixteen of them, if 
the value of 8 Ahau 8 Uo was 9.13.0.0.0, as suggested here. The fact that 
sixteen years of 365 days each exactly separated the Initial Series terminal 
date of the stela from the end of the current katun may have been regarded 
of sufficient importance in itself to warrant its record here; and particularly 
so, since 16X 365 =2X 2,920, the latter period, 2,920 days, being equal to 











1 A case in point is the record of the dates 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol and 9.17.12.5.17 4 Caban 10 Zip 
on Altar T here at Copan, the latter being the first katun anniversary of the former. Ancther example at Quirigua 
is the record of 9.16.13.4.17 8 Caban 5 Yaxkin on the east side of Stela D, which is the second katun anniver- 
sary of 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab, the Initial Series of Stele E and F at the same site. 


182 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


five Venus years of 584 days each, which is so minutely set forth in pages 

24, 45-50 of the Dresden Codex, and which seems to have been a period of 
very great importance among the ancient Maya.’ 

Another interesting point in connection with the Initial Series of Stela 

I is the fact that it is just 8 tuns later than the Initial Series of Stela 1, viz: 
9.11.15.14.0 11 Ahau 8 Zotz 


8. 0.0 
9.12..3:14.0 5 Ahau 8 Uo 


As the former date was 14.0 later than the hotun-ending Stela I was 
erected to commemorate, it seems probable that this was an important anni- 
versary, possibly of some feast celebrated at the conclusion of every Uinal 
14 in each succeeding tun. At least its eighth recurrence after 9.11.15.14.0 
appears as the Initial Series date of Stela I. 

Still another interesting point in connection with this monument is the 
apparent record of a tonalamatl or Sacred Year of 260 days, the earliest 
date on the stela, 9.11.19.5.0, being exactly that number of days before the 
end of Katun 12, viz: 

STI19. 5:0 10 Ahau 13 Ceh 
13.0 (260 days) 
9.12. 0. 0.0 10 Ahau 8 Yaxkin 

Moreover, the next date on Stela I is four-fifths of a tonalamatl later, 
1. é., 9.11.19.15.8 10 Lamat 16 Zotz, the day Lamat also being important 
in the Venus year. 

Tonalamatls divided into five parts of 52 days each are frequently 
represented in the manuscripts, but tonalamatls of any sort are exceedingly 
rare in the inscriptions, hence the importance of finding one apparently 
recorded here. 

Stela I and its altar are the most important hotun-marker yet described 
because of the diversity of points upon which they shed light. These have 
been discussed in the preceding pages, but because of their importance, 
particularly that of the first three, they are repeated below: 


1. This stela and altar determine that the Great Plaza was not laid out until 
after 9.12.5.0.0. 

. This stela and altar establish in a clear and decisive manner that inscrip- 
tions on stela may be and sometimes are concluded on the altars 
with which they are associated.” 

. This stela presents at least one calculation having to do with the tonalamatl 
or Sacred Year of 260 days found usually only in the codices, and 
another having to do with a Solar Year of 365 days. 

. This stela appears to have some relation with Stela 1, its Initial Series 
declaring a date just 8 tuns later than the Initial Series on that monu- 
ment. 


i) 


2 


mS 








1 Morley, 1915, pp. 276-278. 

2 This is chiefly important in jndicating the probable nature of the relationship between Stela E and its altar, 
Stela 19 and its altar, and possibly between Stela 1 and the East Altar of Stela 5, and in tending to show that the 
present altar of Stela 1 and the West Altar of Stela 5 were possibly formerly correlated in this same way with 
some other stela now lost or destroyed. 


eo 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 183 


5. This stela appears to have some relation with the West Altar of Stela 5, 
declaring a date just 5 katuns or a quarter of a cycle later than the 
Initial Series of that monument. 

6. This stela and altar between the Initial Series date on the former and the 
end of the current katun on the latter cover a period of 5,840 days, 
or exactly two of the very important Venus-solar periods of 2,920 
days each, 7. ¢., 10 Venus years or 16 solar years. 


STELA 6. 
Provenance: Several hundred meters northwest of Stela 5 at Group 8. 
(See plate 3.) 
Date: 9.12.10.0.0 9g Ahau 18 Zotz.! 


Text, (a) photograph: Gordon, 1896, plate 7. 

Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 105 and 106. 
; Spinden, 1913, plates 18, 4 and 20, 6. 
(b) drawing: §Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 107. 

figure 33 (altar only). 

References: Bowditch, 1910, p. 1o1 and table 29. 
Gordon, 1896, pp. 35, 37; 38. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 67. 
Spinden, 1913, p. 159 and table 1. 


Stela 6 was found lying on the ground in the bush to the north of the 
road leading from the village to the Main Structure, several hundred meters 
northwest of Stela 5, at Group 8. One of the Peabody Museum expeditions 
raised this monument to its former position; but it has since fallen again, 
and now lies prostrate and broken into two pieces. 

It is 2.9 meters long, 58 cm. wide, and 56 cm. thick. The front is sculp- 
tured with a human figure and the back and sides with glyphs, on the basis 
of which arrangement it is to be assigned to Class 4. The Initial Series 
introducing glyph appears in Ai—B2, and the Initial Series number in a3—B4 
and Bob. ‘The date recorded is 9.12.10.0.0 9 Ahau 18 Zotz, as follows: 


Ar-B2 _ Initial Series introducing glyph 


A3 9 cycles 
B3 12 katuns 
A4u.h. 10 tuns 
Aq I-h. © uinals 
B4a o kins 
B4D g Ahau 
B6D 18 Zotz 


All the above coefficients are bar-and-dot numerals, with the exception 
of the kin coefficient, which is a head-variant, and all the values are per- 
fectly clear as given. 

As Stela 6 records a lahuntun-ending in the Long Count, the lahuntun 
glyph should be found somewhere in the text. Let us therefore continue 
our examination. The next glyph after the month of the Initial Series 
terminal date, a7a, is a well-known ending-sign of which the hand is the 
most conspicuous element, and following this in A7d is the glyph sought for, 
namely, the lahuntun-sign. ‘The regularity with which this glyph occurs in 





1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


184 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


inscriptions dating from lahuntun-endings, and its record in no other kind 
of texts, sufficiently establishes its identity and meaning as given here.’ 

Following this in 87a is the day 8 Ahau, which, the writer believes, was 
recorded here because it was the day on which the current katun ended, 
namely, 9.13.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo. This same practice seems to have obtained 
elsewhere in the Maya area, notably at Quirigua and Palenque, and, as the 
writer has noted elsewhere, it may possibly be a forerunner of the u kahlay 
katunob or series of the katuns, which was the method of counting time and 
recording events used by the Maya at a much later period, 7. ¢., in the New 
Empire in Yucatan? Other glyphs of familiar form but unknown meaning 
appear throughout this text; p4a u. h. is 3 katuns and Bed I. h. the month- 
sign Kankin. There are 13+9-+9=31 glyph-blocks in all, the Initial Series 
introducing glyph occupying the space of 4 glyph-blocks. Stela 6 marked 
the next hotun in the Long Count after Stela I and its altar. 


WEB IW WK] | QS KIN 


Fic. 33.— Inscription on side of altar of Stela 6. 





There is a rectangular altar associated with this stela, which still shows 
traces of glyphs on its sides. (See figure 33.) It is 1.6 meters long, 43 cm. 
high, and 70 cm. wide. The long sides have three vertical bands, one at 
each end and one in the middle, dividing each long side into two panels, 
each having 6 glyph-blocks or 12 to a side. One end is destroyed. The 
other has 6 glyph-blocks. If the destroyed end was similarly treated, there 
were 36 glyph-blocks on this altar originally. The top is plain and there 
are no bands on the preserved end. 

Unfortunately erosion and defacement have advanced so far that it is 
impossible to decipher the date, although ai is clearly the Initial Series 
introducing glyph, followed by the cycle coefficient in Bia. This is a head- 
variant, probably 9, although the details of the head are effaced. The 
cycle-sign, Bib, and the katun coefficient, a2a, are destroyed. The katun- 
sign shows quite clearly in a2b. The tun coefficient and part of the tun-sign 
are preserved in B2. ‘The coefficient is again a head-variant numeral of 
unknown form, though it may be 13. The uinals and kins were recorded at 
c1 and c2 respectively and are entirely effaced. The day of the Initial 
Series terminal date is at pi. Faint traces of the bottom of the day-sign 
cartouche and the head-variant coefficient are all that are left of it. 





1 See Morley, 19172, p. 197 and plate 2, for a discussion of this glyph. 
2 See Morley, 1915, pp. 79-85, and Appendix IT. 





a ee eS 


ea -E ~ a. 


OO —— 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 185 


The month of the Initial Series terminal date appears to be the last 
glyph on this side, F2._ The coefficient is either 8 or 13, the month-sign itself 
being all gone but the lower part. The unknown elements in this date are 
too numerous to permit decipherment, though much could have been 
attempted had only the month-sign been preserved. ‘There are no other 
decipherable glyphs on the remaining sides of this altar. 

The stone collar which formerly supported Stela 6 also seems to have 
been sculptured, but the design is too effaced to distinguish any details. 


ALTAR K. 
Provenance: At the western side of the Middle Court near the 
northern end of Mound 6 at the Main Structure. (See 
plate 6.) 
Date: 9.12.16.7.8 3 Lamat 16 Yax. 


Text, (a) photograph: Spinden, 1913, plate 20, 2. 
(b) drawing: §Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 73, a. 

References: Bowditch, 1910, p. 119 and table 31. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 132. 
Gordon, 1896, insert opposite plate I. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 54. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 162, 163 and table 1. 
Thomas, 1900, pp. 785, 802. 


Altar K was found at the western side of the Middle Court, near the 
northern end of Mound 6. It isasmall rectangular block of stone 81 cm. wide, 
70 cm. broad, and 33 cm. high. The top is plain, the four sides are inscribed 
with glyphs. 

The Initial Series is recorded on what is now the west side, but there is 
considerable doubt as to whether this altar is im situ. The Initial Series 
introducing glyph is in a1. The variable element is the sign for the planet 
Venus and is the earliest occurrence of this glyph as such, so far 
as the SINE writer knows, in the Copan texts. Cycle 9 is recorded in 
Bl. The katun coefficient, A2a, is partially effaced. Enough remains, 
however, to show that it was above 10 and under 15; two bars show distinctly, 
and the upper dot, which is numerical. This reduces the katun coefficient 
to three possibilities, 12, 13, or 14. The ‘ll tun coefficient, B2a, is 16. The 
uinal coefficient, cia, is 7, although it looks more like Io at first sight. 
Maudslay shows it as almost effaced, but it is clearly above 5 and below 11. 
A close examination of the original established the presence of two numeri- 
cal dots with a plain intervening space @] and one bar. The kin coefficient, 
pia, is clearly 8 and the day coefficient, || c2a, clearly 3. The day-sign itself, 
c2b, is unfamiliar, but since the kin @J coefficient is surely 8, it can only 
be Lamat. 

The last glyph of the Supplementary Series, Glyph A, appears in F2 
(south side), and this is followed by the month-sign in G2. The month-sign 
coefficient is clearly 16,'! and the month-sign itself either Chen, Yax, Zac, or 








1 Maudslay (1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 73, 4, glyph 14) shows a coefficient of above 15. The original is sufficiently 
preserved here to show that it is 16. 


186 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Ceh, the best reading being Yax. Tabulating the foregoing values, we will 


have: 
ar _ Initial Series introducing glyph 
BI 9 cycles 
A2 12, 13, or 14 katuns 
B2 16 tuns 


CI 7 uinals 
DI 8 kins 
C2 3 Lamat 


G2 16 Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh 


Using the three values of the katun-coefficient possible, we will obtain 

the following readings: 
9.12.16.7.8 3 Lamat 16 Yax 
9.13.16.7.8 1 Lamat 16 Tzec 
9.14.16.7.8 12 Lamat 1 Uayeb 

As the day-coefficient is surely 3, the month-coefficient surely 16, and 
the month-sign probably Yax, the first is not only the best but also the only 
reading possible here, and we may safely accept 9.12.16.7.8 3 Lamat 16 Yax 
as the date of this altar. 

That Altar K was formerly associated with a stela seems doubtful, 
since no hotun-ending is recorded upon it. It should be noted that the day 
of the Initial Series terminal date is Lamat, one of the five days on which 
the Venus year could end, and the Venus-sign itself actually appears as the 
variable element in the Initial Series introducing glyph. As already noted 
in connection with a Calendar Round date on Stela 23 (see p. 150), and 
elsewhere here at Copan, the sign for Venus is sometimes used as a substi- 
tute for the day Lamat, perhaps indicating some sort of a relation between 
this day and this planet. Examples of this use will be pointed out as they 
occur. 

Few of the remaining glyphs are familiar. Q2@ and r2a (north side) 
each record 4 katuns, though the connection between these and the rest of 
the text is unknown. There are 8+-10+8+10=36 glyph-blocks in the text. 


ALTAR H’. 


Provenance: Original position uncertain. Now at the southern 
end of the Western Court, at the northeastern corner 
of Mound 14 of the Acropolis, Main Structure. (See 


plate 6.) 
Date: 9.13.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo.! 
Text, drawing: plate 237.4, 0,4) 
References: Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 597. 


Gordon, 1896, p. 15. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 24. 


Altar H’ is 2.26 meters long, 1.40 meters wide, and 36 cm. thick. It 
now lies in the Western Court of the Main Structure at the northeastern 
corner of Mound 14. It is broken into four pieces, three small and one 





' For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 





; 
f 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 187 


large. The southeastern corner, as the altar now stands, is missing. Altar 
H’ is in every way the companion piece of Altar I’, which stands at the 
northwestern corner of this same mound, and, as will appear later, the two 
are not only practically identical in size, shape, and treatment, but are also 
connected by the subject-matter of their respective inscriptions. 

Galindo was the first to describe both Altars H’ and I’, as follows: 

“Near to the corner of this pyramid of sacrifice [Mound 16] there is found a 
rectangular table or stone [Altar H’], elevated above the ground like that already 
described [Altar Q] by smaller stone supports; it is 2 varas 21 inches long, and 1 
vara 20 inches wide, and 13 inches thick or high; three sides of its edge contain 
characters, which are in squares (casillas) four to a block; figure 17 represents one 
of these rectangular groups; the edges of the stone thus contain 24 squares on the 
long side, and 16 on the smaller sides; the other long side, which faces south, and the 
top and bottom are plain. At the other side of the canoe’ there is a stone, or table, 
similar to the last described, but very broken [Altar I’].’” 


Maudslay, in describing these two altars, says: 


‘ 


‘7 and 7 are two flat stone slabs, each about the same size, 7 feet 6 inches X 
4 feet 6 inches X I foot; both are broken, one has indistinct remains of hieroglyphic 
carving on the narrow sides and ends. Excavations have been made beneath each 
of these slabs at some former time.’” 


Fortunately, in spite of this indistinctness, the writer was able to 
decipher the calculations recorded. It should be noted that both of these 
altars have inscriptions, and not one only, as stated by Maudslay. 

The inscription is presented on the ends and one of the sides; the 
remaining side, top, and bottom are plain. There is no decoration of any 
sort other than the single band of glyphs just mentioned, and as one of the 
long sides is plain, we may assume that this was the back. If so, the inscrip- 
tion on Altar H’ began on the left or east side with the Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph, the left half of which is missing. (See a, plate 23, a.) 

The Initial Series of this altar is expressed by head-variant period- 
glyphs and numerals, the order of reading within the glyph-blocks being from 
left to right and top to bottom. The coefficients unfortunately are not only 
indistinct in some places, but of unusual form. Thus, although the cycle 
and uinal coefficients are readily identifiable as 9 and 3 respectively, the 
katun, tun, and kin coefficients are irregular. A better way, therefore, to 
decipher this date is to continue the inspection of the text before attempting 
to assign values to these doubtful numerals. 

The day of the Initial Series terminal date appears in pa |. h., 
and is either 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 Muluc. Following along through £ and F 
(plate 23, b) the last glyph of the Supplementary Series is reached in Ga u. h.; 
and in Gb u. h. is the month of the Initial Series terminal date, 17 Mol. 

The first Secondary Series, 2.13.4.4, 1s recorded at Jb 1. h., Ka; and at 
Kb u. h. there is a non-calendric glyph, very irregularly standing between the 











1 Galindo thus fancifully describes one of the sculptures at the northern base of mound 14. 
2 Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 597. 
3 Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text p. 24. 


188 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


tun and katun signs. Following this in Lt u. h. is a Calendar Round 
date, 6 Chicchan 18 Kayab. Now, the only way this date can be connected 
with 17 Mol, by this number, is to count 2.13.4.4 forward from 6 Chicchan 
18 Kayab, in which case the terminal date reached will be found to be 8 
Muluc 17 Mol; and we may therefore fill in the doubtful day-sign coefficient 
in pal. h. as 8. But now that we have the complete Initial Series terminal 
date, we can find from Goodman’s tables at what places in Cycle 9 it could 
have occurred, remembering, however, that the uinal coefficient must be 3. 
(See cal. h.) These will be found to be seven in number, as follows: 


(1) 9. 1.17. 5.9 8 Muluc 17 Mol 
(2) 9. 4.10. 0.9 - : 
(3) 9. 7- 2.13.9 i : 
(4) 9. 9.15. 8.9 : i 
(5) 9.12. 8. 3.9 . % 
(6) 9.15. 0.16.9 a 
(7)009.17-13.L1.9 < . 


As the fifth, 9.12.8.3.9, is the only one having a uinal coefficient of 3, 
it may be accepted as the Initial Series recorded on this altar. This reading, 
moreover, as will appear later, is confirmed by additional evidence in the text. 

Let us next ascertain how these values for the katun, tun, and kin 
coefficients agree with those actually recorded. The katun coefficient in 
pa |. h. is very dissimilar to any of the known forms for 12, and we 
must pass it over as an unusual variant. The tun coefficient, cau. h., is par- 
tially effaced, but from what little is left, the frontlet ornament, character- 
istic of the head for 8, 7. ¢., being composed of one part, appears to be dis- 
tinguishable. The kin coefficient, pa u. h., is probably 9, traces of the dots 
still appearing on the lower part of the cheek. Thus, with the exception 
of the katun coefficient, all the values recorded agree with those obtained 
in the above calculation. But now that we know the corresponding Initia] 
Series value of the terminal date, the Initial Series value of 6 Chicchan 18 
Kayab may be calculated therefrom as follows: 


9.12. 8. 3.9 8 Muluc 17 Mol 


ee oe 
9. 9.14.17.5 6 Chicchan 18 Kayab 


Returning to our text again, there follows in Ld 1. h. and ma u. h. another 
Secondary Series, 1.14.11; and in Ma 1. h. the lahuntun-sign. Finally, in md 
]. h., Na u.h. is the Calendar Round date 9 Ahau 18 Zotz, which ma lI. h. 
declares stood at the end of a lahuntun in the Long Count. By referring to 
Goodman’s tables, it will be found that 9 Ahau 18 Zotz can occur asa lahun- 
tun-ending only once for more than 18,000 years either before or after 
g.12.8.3.9, namely, at 9.12.10.0.0 9 Ahau 18 Zotz, which therefore is doubt- 
less the value intended here. 

Every attempt to connect 9.9.14.17.5 6 Chicchan 18 Kayab with 
9.12.10.0.0 9 Ahau 18 Zotz, however, either by counting 1.14.11 backward 
or forward from either date to the other, will prove unsuccessful, but if this 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 189 


number is counted forward from the Initial Series terminal date, the lahun- 
tun-ending recorded will be reached, which further authenticates the Initial 
Series as deciphered above, viz: 

g.12. 8. 3.9 8 Muluc 17 Mol 

1.14.11 
9.12.10. 0. 0 9g Ahau 18 Zotz 
The last three glyphs of the text, Nb u. h. to Nb 1. h., are undecipher- 

able. A complete summary of the foregoing calculations follows: 


A-pa |. h., Gb u. h. g.12. 8. 3. 9 8 Muluc 17 Mol 

qpieh., Kew h., Kal, h, 2.13. 4. 4 backward 

Lu. h. O. Gidages 6 Chicchan 18 Kayab 

Lb |. h., Ma u. h. 1.14.11 forward from Initial Series 
Mb |. h., Na u. h. 9.12.10. 0. 0 9g Ahau 18 Zotz 

Mal.h. End of a lahuntun 


It may be noted in passing that the second date above, 9.9.14.17.5 
6 Chicchan 18 Kayab, is exactly 78 years of 365 days each earlier than the 
best reading of the Initial Series of Stela 5, namely, 9.13.14.0.15 6 Men 18 
Kayab. (See p. 207.) 

There are 4 glyph-blocks on each end and 6 on the front, making 14 
for the entire inscription. ‘These contain about 48 individual characters, 
and as 17 have been completely deciphered and the significance of 8 more 
at least partially understood, and finally, since this is an average text, we 
may claim with some reasonableness that the meanings of from one-third 
to one-half of the Maya glyphs have been determined. 

As will appear in connection with Altar I’, the sister monument of 
Altar H’, the inscriptions on the two are continuous and can not be treated 
separately; therefore the question as to what was the contemporaneous date 
of Altar H’ will be taken up under Altar I’. 


ALTAR I’, 


Provenance: Original position uncertain. Now at the southern 
end of the Western Court, at the northwestern corner 
of Mound 14 of the Acropolis, Main Structure. (See 


plate 6.) 
Date: 9.13.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo.! 
Text, drawing: plate 23, d, ¢, f. 
References: Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI], p. 597. 


Gordon, 1896, p. I5. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 24. 


Altar I’, the sister monument of Altar H’, is 2.48 meters long, 1.45 
meters wide, and 38 cm. thick. It now lies at the northwestern corner of 
Mound 14 at the Main Structure, broken into 5 pieces, one of which, the 
northeastern corner, is missing, and was also when Galindo first described 
this altar in 1834. 


1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VITI. 





190 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The inscription, as in the case of Altar H’, is presented upon the ends 
and front, the back, top, and bottom being plain. As this monument is 
20 cm. longer than Altar H’, it has one more glyph-block on the front than 
the latter, making 15, 7. ¢., 4.+7+4, for the entire inscription. 

This text presents a very unusual feature, found only on two other 
monuments in the Maya area—Stela 4, also here at Copan, and Stela Io, 
at Tikal—namely, the record of its Initial Series introducing glyph in a 
position other than at the beginning of the inscription, 7. ¢., here in the 
second position. (See B, plate 23, d.) Fortunately, in the present case there 
exists an excellent reason to account for this highly irregular procedure, but 
in the case of the other Copan example, Stela 4, as will appear later, the 
inversion is inexplicable. (See p. 356.) 

The first glyph-block, a (plate 23, d), presents a Secondary Series com- 
posed of 7.14.11, the tun coefficient being surely above 10 and below 16. But 
since there is no date from which this may be counted, let us proceed with 
the examination of our text. B is an Initial Series introducing glyph, and 
following this in c to E is an Initial Series number. 

The cycle-sign and its coefficient in c u. h. clearly record 9 cycles 
and the katun-sign and coefficient in c |. h., 13 katuns. This much is 
certain. Unfortunately, the greater part of the next glyph-block, p, and half 
of the next, Ea (plate 23, ¢), are gone, being on the missing fragment, but the 
kin-sign appears in Ed u. h., and, far more important, the month of the Initial 
Series terminal date, 8 Uo, in Ed]. h., thus reducing the possible readings for 
this Initial Series from 7,200 to 20.! 

The writer made a protracted search for this missing piece, not only 
in the immediate neighborhood of the other four fragments, which were 
apparently found together, but also throughout the Western Court as well, 
but with no success. Galindo? describes Altar I’ as very broken in 1834; and 
Maudslay states*® that excavations had been made under both of these altars, 
at which time they were probably broken and possibly the corner now missing 
was then carried off. It is a small fragment, only 25 cm. long on one side 
and 13 cm. on the other, and may have been taken some little distance and 
left in the bush. It is to be hoped that eventually it will be found. However, 
even though it never should be recovered, there are sufficient data on the 
remaining pieces to assign this altar to its proper position in Maya chronology. 

It was mentioned above that the record of the month of the Initial 
Series terminal date in E1) |. h. reduced the possible readings from 7,200 to 
20. Now, while it is hardly necessary to repeat all of the latter here, since 
the first is so obviously the one intended by the ancient sculptors, it has 
seemed best to do so, since the complete list makes it so clear why the 
first value is the best choice from the Maya point of view. Referring to 











1 Since the katun-coefficient is surely 13, this fact alone limits the number of possible dates to 7,200; and further, 
since any month-position, as 8 Uo here, recurred at intervals of every 365 days; and finally, since Katun 13 ended 
on the month-position 8 Uo, this position only occurred 19 times thereafter between 9.13.0.0.0 and 9.14.0.0.0. 

? Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 597. 

3 Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text p. 24. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. I9gI 


Goodman’s tables, it will be found that days falling on the month-position 
8 Uo in Katun 13 occurred in the following places: 


9:13050.02'0 8 Ahau 8 Uo 
9.1355. .Ones g Chicchan “ 
G55. 2-0.16. 10 Ue - 
9.13: 3.0.15 Tr Men by 
O.usui4d0 12 Ahaa r 
Cree ec ei sucnicchan-) © 
6:17. 0.1-10 1 Oc _ 
iga7- 10s 2 Men 4 
O.125.3.7.50 3 Ahau . 
Gis G20 4 Chicchan “ 
9.13-10.2.10 RcOe ¢ 
9.13:102-15 6 Men : 
9.131223.) tea 7 sana : 
O.13:03.5555 8 Chicchan “ 
9.13.14.3-10 9g Oc - 
9-13.15.3-15 10 Men : 
9.13.16.4. 0 11 Ahau “ 
Deiat py.aes ele Chicchan 
9.13.18.4.10 13 Oc : 
9.13.19.4.15 1 Men 3 


To record the ends of the longer time-periods in Maya notation as in 
our own, the lower periods must be represented as at o. Thus, for example, 
to record the ends of tuns, 7. ¢., the 360-day periods, both the uinal and kin 
coefficients must be 0. To record the ends of hotuns, 7. ¢., the 1,800-day 
periods, the uinal and kin coefficients must be 0, and the tun-coefficient 
either 0, 5, 10, or 15. Finally, to record the ends of even katuns, 7. ¢., 7,200- 
day periods, the tun, uinal, and kin coefficients all must be o. 

A study of the above list shows that the uinal and kin coefficients are 
both at o in one place only, namely, 9.13.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo, where, moreover, 
the tun coefficient is also o. ‘This is the equivalent of stating that the first 
date above records not only the end of a tun in the Long Count, but also the 
end of a hotun, and even of a katun. The Maya sought always to record 
upon their monuments, particularly of the stela type, the ends of periods 
in their chronological system, and even if there were not additional reasons 
to be presented later for accepting the first value, the one given above 
would be sufficient to warrant its acceptance here. 

But stronger proof of the accuracy of this reading is contained in the 
text itself. If the Initial Series of Altar I’ is 9.13.0.0.0, it becomes possible 
to connect this altar with its sister monument, Altar H’, by the distance 
number in a, ?.14.11 and at the same time it develops a plausible explanation 
for the record of its Initial Series introducing glyph in the second glyph- 
block instead of in the first. 

The Initial Series of Altar H’ is 9.12.8.3.9. Let us next count forward 
from this date, the Secondary Series number in the first glyph-block on Altar 
I’, using all the five values of the tun-coefficient there possible, 7. ¢., 11 to 15 
inclusive: 

Oto Nase ize. Seng. 9 Q:12.0005. 9 9:12. 834.9 BE ee me | 


II.14.11 12.14.11 1 14.14.11 TS LAs 
G137050.20 9.13.<1. 0. O Q-130 250.10 G0 4-09-00 9.13. 4.0, 0 


192 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


But we have just seen that the Initial Series following the above Second- 
ary Series number records the date 9.13.0.0.0, precisely the same date as 
that reached in the first of the above calculations, the one in which the 
tun coefficient is tr. In other words, 11 is the most likely. value of the 
tun coefficient here, since 11.14.11 exactly connects the Initial Series of the 
one altar (H’) with the Initial Series of the other (1’). Furthermore, if this 
is so, It is easy to understand why the sculptors permitted the displacement 
of the Initial Series introducing glyph here. They wished to show by this 
displacement that if 11.14.11 was counted forward from some earlier date, 
not recorded on Altar I’, the date reached would be the Initial Series immedi- 
ately following 11.14.11. Hence the displacement of the Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph, so that this number, which led to its Initial Series immediately 
following, could precede it. 

Although the above readings are based upon certain restorations in the 
original, the results obtained are of such a nature as to prove practically 
their own accuracy, and the Secondary Series in a and the Initial Series in 
B-E may be accepted as deciphered above, viz: 

A-Dal.h.,Giau.h. Altar H’ 9.12. 8. 3. 9 8 Muluc 17 Mol 
A Altar I’ Ey ye | 
B-E Altar I’ 9.13. 0. o. o 8 Ahau 8 Uo 

The next count on Altar I’ is another Secondary Series in G (plate 23, e), 
consisting of 2.10.16.3.0, which is followed by the date 9 Ahau 13 Cumhu 
in Hb u.h., Hal. h. However, every attempt to connect this latter date with 
the Initial Series terminal date, either by counting backward or forward, will 
prove unsuccessful, and we must continue the inspection of our text to find 
the reason for its record. 

Immediately following 9 Ahau 13 Cumhu in 1 u. h. is the date 9 
Ahau 18 Zotz, and it will be found that if 2.10.16.3.0 is counted forward 
from 9 Ahau 13 Cumhu this latter date will be reached. But we have seen 
that this latter date has the value 9.12.10.0.0 on the sister monument, and 
therefore, in view of the other close relations between these two inscriptions 
pointed out above, it seems probable that it will have the same value here; 
and if this is so, the Initial Series value of g Ahau 13 Cumhu can be calcu- 
lated from it as follows: 

g.12.10. 0.0 g Ahau 18 Zotz 
2.10:16: 5330 
7. 1.13.15.0 9 Ahau 13 Cumhu 

This Secondary Series number, 7. ¢., 2.10.16.3.0, equals 1,001.58 solar 
years (tropical). At first sight it would appear as though this long number, 
composed of 365,820 days, was meant to represent exactly 1,000 solar years, 
but such an explanation demands that the Maya had determined the solar 
year no more closely than as containing 365.82 days, an error of more than 
one day every two years, which seems very unlikely in view of the accuracy 
of their other astronomical observations. However, such a long stretch of 
time, probably purely an abstract conception so far as their actual history 


PLATE 22 


> 
uw 
a 
o 
Oo 
= 


— om ee ee ae sw 


ae ee oe ae me el 


OY Se py eee ea 





RSG Sealant 
6 ote 4, 


iar 
LEY) 


ere 


SPORT 
at oe, OPK xo 


¥, 
EO 


a ee Me% 





ECKERT LITHO, Co., WASH.,0.C. 





— 


MORLEY. PLATE 22 


at at i, 
t ; 
' ’ 
' ' 
t ' 
; ! 
' i 
y ! 
Fi Hy 
$ i 
i 

‘ ! 
t é 
4 


ef 





Altar C’. Front, back and sides. Drawn partly from the original, and partly from a cast preserved in the Peabody Museum, Cambridge. Mass. 
























A 
WP VbOO 






LVS 







uy 


Altar of Stela 1. Inscription and knotted hands on the periphery. Drawn from the original. 








d 


Altar of Stela 13. Inscription on the periphery. Drawn from the original. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 193 


was concerned, since it goes back to Cycle 7, from which no other dates are 
known, bespeaks a high intellectual development, and indicates that the 
priesthood, or those who worked out the calculations presented upon the 
monuments, had reached a plane of mental achievement where they were 
dealing with periods of time far beyond the finite, so far as their own epoch 
was concerned. 

The Calendar Round date in 1 u. h. concludes the calculations presented 
on this altar. Of the 15 glyph-blocks containing some 52 individual glyphs, 
17 have been completely deciphered, and the significance of 6 others at 
least partially understood; that is to say, from one-third to one-half of this 
text has been deciphered. 

The inscriptions on these two altars are so closely related that the one 
on Altar H’ has been repeated in the following summary to facilitate study: 


Altar H’: a—pa 1. h., Gd u. h. 9.12. 8. 3. 9 8 Muluc 17 Mol 
jo. bo, ka Grn Ka leh: 2.13. 4. 4 backward 
IauS he 9. 9.14.17. 5 6Chicchan 18 
Kayab 
Lb |. h., Ma u. h. 1.14.11 forward from 
Initial Series 
mb |. h., Na u. h. 9.12.10. 0.0 9g Ahau 18 Zotz 
mal. h. End of a lahuntun 
Altar I’: abu.h., aa I. h. 11.14.11 to Initial Series of 
Altar H’ 
B-E 9.13. 0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo 
Hb u. h., Hal. h. 7. 1.13.15. 0 9 Ahau 13 Cumhu 
fe Z10.16..4: G. “forward 
1,u. h. g.12.10. 0. 0 g Ahau 18 Zotz 


A study of the above summary at once raises the question as to whether 
both of these altars may not date from the same period. Indeed, the style 
and treatment of the two monuments 1s so similar, and the calculations pre- 
sented upon them are so mutually interdependent, that it is difficult to 
believe they could have been made at different times, even only Io years 
apart. 

In this connection two possibilities would appear to present themselves, 
either both altars date from 9.12.10.0.0, a date found on both (7. ¢., 9 Ahau 
18 Zotz), or else both date from 9.13.0.0.0, the Initial Series terminal date on 
Altar I’, and the latest found on either. 

If the former were the date of these altars, it is possible that both may 
have been originally associated with Stela 6, the date of which is also 
9.12.10.0.0. In this event the record of 9.13.0.0.0 on Altar I’ is to be inter- 
preted in the same way as the same date on the altar of Stela I, namely, 
as the record of the current katun-ending, and not as the contemporaneous 
date of the altar. 

A better interpretation, however, is to assign both to 9.13.0.0.0, and not 
to regard either as having been formerly associated with Stela 6. The latter 
date, moreover, was a katun-ending, a suitable time for the erection of two 
altars, which as we have already seen, appears to have been done at the 


194 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


conclusion of the preceding katun 9.12.0.0.0, on which latter date the altar 
of Stela 1 and the West Altar of Stela 5 were erected. 

Whether a stela was ever associated with Altars H’ and I’ is unknown. 
Perhaps, as already suggested for the altar of Stela 1 and the West Altar 
of Stela 5, the fact that two altars were erected instead of one may have 
served in place of a stela. At least, in view of the similarity between the 
two cases, it seems not unlikely that the end of Katun 12 was commemorated 
by the erection of two round altars—the altar of Stela 1 and the West Altar 
of Stela 5s—and that the end of the succeeding katun, Katun 13, was com- 
memorated by the erection of two rectangular altars—Altars H’ and I’. 
But whether or not stele ever accompanied these two pairs of altars is 
uncertain. The writer is inclined to believe that they did not. 

Whichever date be accepted for Altars H’ and I’, either 9.12.10.0.0, 
or, as the writer believes, 9.13.0.0.0, it is obvious that neither monument 
can be im situ in the Western Court, strictly speaking, since this part of the 
Acropolis probably did not take final form until 9.17.0.0.0, when the review- 
ing-stand at the opposite (7. e., northern) end was dedicated. (See plate 6.) 
It is probable, therefore, that Altars H’ and I’ were removed thither from 
some earlier location, perhaps at the same time Stela P was re-erected here. 


STELA J. 
Provenance: At the southeast corner of Mound 3, at the edge of the 
Great. Plaza, Main Structure. (See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.13.10.0:0 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu.! 
Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 66, 67. 
figure 34. 
(b) drawing: | Férstemann, 19044, figure on p. 362. 


Morley, 1915, plate 15. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 68 to 72. 
Thomas, 1900, plates 43, a and 43, b. 


References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 117, 118, 136, 243, 247 and tables 29 and 31. 
Férstemann, 19044, pp. 361-363. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 131. 
Gordon, 1896, pp. 24, 34, 35- 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. I of text, pp. 53,54. 
Morley, 1915, pp. 191, 192. 
Spinden, 1913, p. 159 and table 1. 
‘Thomas, 1900, pp. 779-785, 802. 

Stela J stands im situ at the southeastern corner of Mound 3, one of 
the structures rising from the terrace on the eastern side of the Great Plaza. 
It is 2.69 meters high above ground and 1 meter wide at the widest part. 

This monument, apparently discovered and first described by Mauds- 
lay,” is one of the most remarkable in the entire Maya area, and, with the 
single exception of Stela H at Quirigua, differs from all others in the presenta- 
tion of its inscription. All four faces are inscribed with glyphs, the peculiar 
arrangement of which, as well as the unusualness of the subject-matter, 
constitutes the monument’s chief claim to distinction. On this basis it may 


1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 
2 Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 53, 54. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 195 


be referred to Class 3, although this classification is admittedly unsatis- 
factory because of the peculiarity of the glyph sequence. 

The inscription on the front or west face is presented as a scheme of 
interlacing bands crossing each other at right angles in such a way as to 
outline a grotesque face. 

The inscription on the back or east face is also presented as a scheme 
of interlacing bands, but on this side the bands cross each other diagonally, 
giving the effect of a woven mat pattern. Maudslay carefully worked out 
the glyph sequences on both the front and back of this monument, and his 
scheme of numeration is used in the following discussion.! 

The inscriptions on the two narrow faces are perfectly regular in their 
presentation, each being composed of two parallel columns of glyph-blocks.? 
The inscription on the front opens with the day 1, 2, or 3 Ahau. The middle 
dot may be different from the other two, but not enough so as to give prefer- 
ence to I or 2 over 3. After this glyph, the order of reading is extremely 
doubtful. Glyph 3 appears to be the remains of another day-sign, but the 
interior details, as well as the coefficient, are entirely gone. Glyph 14 shows 
the day-sign Ahau again in connection with a hand “‘ending-sign,” and this 
is followed by 11, 12, or 13 cycles in Glyph 15. Bowditch deciphers Glyph 15 
as g cycles: “On Stela J (w) of Copan, Glyph 15 (Maudslay’s notation) is 
by the photograph clearly 9 cycles.’ 

A careful study of the Peabody Museum photographs, however, failed 
to convince the writer of the correctness of this reading. On the contrary, 
the cycle coefficient in Glyph 15 appears to be composed of two bars and 
three dots, 1. ¢., 13. This same number of cycles, moreover, appears a few 
glyphs farther on. 

Glyph 27 is a hand and Glyph 29 a hand “ending-sign”’ and the day- 
sign Ahau again. Finally, Glyph 30 is an “ending-sign”’ and 13 cycles again. 
It is not clear whether Glyphs 27, 28, 29, and 30 follow Glyph 15 or not. 
This part of the text is quite unintelligible and the sequence is uncertain. 
Glyph 31 is 7 Ahau, Glyph 32 a hand, and Glyph 33, 3 Cumhu, and the right 
half of Glyph 34 possibly a variant of the lahuntun-sign. The rest of the 
glyphs below this band are either effaced or of unknown meaning. ‘This 
date, 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu, as will appear later, is the terminal date of the Initial 
Series on the west side and is, moreover, a lahuntun-ending as well. 

In Glyphs 24, 23, 16, and 17, which appear to follow each other in this 
sequence, or the reverse, 17, 16, 23, and 24, there seems to be recorded a 
Period Ending date as follows: 


> 


Glyph 24-11, 12, 13 or 14 katuns 
Glyph 23) 111, 12,13 oft tune 
Glyph 17 O uinals 

Glyph 16 o kins 





1See Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, pls. 68 and 71. 
2 The usual method of glyph designation, i. ¢., by letters and numbers, has been followed on these two faces. 
3 Bowditch, 1910, p. 117. 


196 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Taking these up in turn, the last two values of the katun coefficient 13 
and 14 can probably be eliminated as indicating dates later than the lahun- 
tun-ending, which Stela J was erected to commemorate, namely, 9.13.10.0.0. 
This leaves a choice of 11 or 12. Matidslay’s drawing shows 12,' and both 
Goodman? and Bowditch’ accept this reading. 

The tun coefficient (Glyph 23) is even more uncertain. ‘Two bars show 
very clearly and there is room for one more bar or a row of dots. The writer 
thought he was able to trace the outline of the upper dot on the original, 
which would give four possible values, 11, 12, 13, or 14. The uinal and kin 
coefficients (Glyphs 16 and 17, respectively) are very clearly o. 

Bowditch reads Glyph 15 with these four glyphs as the following Initial 
Series 9.12.12.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Zotz; and although it is quite possible that the 
day 1 Ahau may be recorded in Glyph 1, this reading is open to three very 
serious objections. First, at least one glyph (No. 25), if not more, stands 
between the glyph representing “9 cycles” and the glyph representing “12 
katuns.” Such an interpolation between the period-glyphs of an Initial 
Series is a thing absolutely unknown in all Initial Series. The second 
objection is that Glyph 14 (the sign immediately preceding “9g cycles’’) is 
not an Initial Series introducing glyph. ‘Third, the cycle coefficient in Glyph 
15 is much better as 13 than 9. The writer, therefore, is unable to agree 
with this interpretation, and believes indeed that Glyph 15 does not immedi- 
ately precede the other four. 

That Glyphs 24, 23, 16, and 17 record a Period Ending date, however, 
which may well be the equivalent of this Initial Series date, is quite another 
matter, and is well within the range of possibility. The first point to be 
determined in deciphering this number is which, if either, of the two dates 
on this side of Stela J is the terminal date of this period-ending. 

If Glyphs 31, 33, and 34 are to be read with 24, 23, 16, and 17, this 
period-ending can be none other than ‘*7 Ahau 3 Cumhu end of Tun to of 
Katun 13, end of a lahuntun.” This must be true, since 31 and 33 unmis- 
takably record the date “7 Ahau 3 Cumhu” and 34 probably the end of a 
lahuntun, and this date could only occur as a lahuntun-ending at the end 
of Tun roof Katun 13. A careful inspection of the katun and tun coefficients 
shows that while the former possibly might have been 13, the latter never 
could have been 10. This, therefore, eliminates the possibility of Glyphs 31 
and 33 being the terminal date of the period-ending in 24, 23, 16, and 17. 

The remaining date which may possibly belong to this period-ending 
is fragmentary, only the day being preserved in Glyph 1. As we have already 
seen, this is surely 1, 2, or 3 Ahau. By referring to Goodman’s tables, it will 
be found that there is only one possible date in Cycle 9 prior to 9.13.10.0.0 
which fulfills all the necessary conditions, namely, 9.12.12.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Zotz. 
Both Goodman and Bowditch agree upon this interpretation. It therefore 





1 Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 68. 2 Goodman, 1897, p. 131. 5 Bowditch, 1910, p. 117. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 197 


seems probable that Glyphs 1, 24, 23, 16, and 17 declare the Period Ending 
date ‘1 Ahau (8 Zotz) end of Tun 12 of Katun 12,” the corresponding Initial 
Series of which is 9.12.12.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Zotz, as given by Bowditch. 

Let us turn next to the consideration of the inscription on the north 
side, the first two glyph-blocks of which, A1, B1, figure 34, as will presently 
appear, probably declare the date 10.0.0.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Zip, which must have 
been of a prophetic nature at the time 
Stela J was erected. The upper half of 
Al, figure 34, shows two coefficients of 0, 
attached to two grotesque heads; and 
although the latter are to some extent ef- 
faced, sufficient remains in each case to 
show that they are the head-variant 
forms of the uinal and kin-signs respec- 1% 34— Top ee ere ‘a inscription on 

north side of Stela J. 
tively. 

The lower left-hand corner of a1 shows a grotesque head characterized 
by a fleshless lower jaw, 7. ¢., the tun-sign. Maudslay (1889-1902, vol. 1, 
plate 69, glyph 41) shows its coefficient as 10; and a careful examination of 
the original established the correctness of this reading. 

The lower right-hand corner of a1 is less clear. The head there por- 
trayed is surmounted by the familiar superfix of the katun-sign, and as the 
head itself resembles other known head variants for the katun, this identi- 
fication is doubtless correct. 

The best reading of the katun coefficient is 6, the elements both above 
and below the central dot being not only smaller but decorated as well. 
The whole glyph-block, therefore, records 6.10.0.0. 

The next glyph-block, Bi, begins with an ending-sign which is followed 
by a grotesque head, apparently a period-glyph, surmounted by the coeffi- 
cient 10. The lower half records a Calendar Round date 7 Ahau 13 Zip. 

It would seem, therefore, that we have recorded here a distance num- 
ber of 6.10.0.0, which, if counted forward from some unexpressed date, will 
reach the date 7 Ahau 13 Zip. Furthermore, the upper half of Bi declares 
that this latter date was at the end of some period whose coefficient is Io. 
This looks as though it might be the cycle-sign, having a clasped hand on the 
lower jaw, but even although the details of the glyph are not sufficient to 
establish its identity beyond doubt, it can hardly be other than a Tun Io, a 
Katun 10, or a Cycle Io. 

Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that no Tun ro in Cycle 
9, nor Katun 1oof Cycle 9, nor Cycle 1o itself, ended on a day 7 Ahau 13 Zip, 
the nearest to this date being Cycle 10, which ended on the day 7 Ahau 18 
Zip—1io.0.0.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Zip—a difference of 5 (7. ¢., 1 bar) in the month 
coefficient. 

If this last is the date intended here, an excellent reason, moreover, 
exists for the record of 6.10.0.0 in Al, namely, that this number exactly 





198 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


expresses the time between the contemporaneous date of Stela J, 9.13.10.0.0, 
and the end of the current cycle, 7. ¢., Cycle 10: 
9.13.10.0.0 7Ahau 3 Cumhu 
6.10.0.0 
10; 0.0.0.0, .7,Ahaurrs Zip 

The above reading necessitates a correction in the original, namely, the 
introduction of another bar in the month coefficient in Bid 1.h. But as the 
record stands, it is obviously incorrect, since 7 Ahau 13 Zip can not end any 
tun in Cycle 9, except Tun 16 of Katun 1, which is far too early on historic 
grounds, and since the change suggested is the least which can be made, so 
that the passage will be intelligible, it is probably correct. 

A minor point tending to establish its accuracy is the fact that the day 
of the starting-point (7. ¢., the terminal date of the Initial Series) and of the 
terminal date of this Period Ending are the same, namely, 7 Ahau, a not 
infrequent occurrence in counts of this character. It denotes, of course, an 
even number of tonalamatls, 7. ¢., multiples of 260, here, 1,800 of them. If 
correct, the final date, 7. ¢., 10.0.0.0.0, must have been still far ahead in 
the future when it was recorded in 9.13.10.0.0, and in that sense was 
“prophetic.” 

As we proceed, we will find other occurrences of the record of Cycle 10 
here at Copan, which can hardly have been other than prophetic also. 
Thus, for example on Altar 5S, the contemporaneous date of which is 
9.15.0.0.0, the date 10.0.0.0.0.1s recorded (see pp. 227-229), and again, on 
Stela 8, the contemporaneous date of which is 9.17.12.6.2, the same cycle- 
ending is again recorded (see pp. 342, 343). It is probable, therefore, that 
the first two glyph-blocks on the north side of Stela J declare the time which 
had yet to elapse, from the contemporaneous date of the monument to the end 
of the current cycle, 7. ¢., 10.0.0.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Zip, that is, 6.10.0.0; and 
furthermore, that in carving this record, the ancient sculptor to whom the 
task was intrusted made an error of 5 in the month coefficient, omitting one 
bar in Bib 1. h. 

Férstemann’s reading of Ai, B1 seems very far astray: 


“Group a consists of four signs 3'7'. Of these, No. 1, as far as it can be recog- 
nized, appears to be a general introductory sign of a time count, with which the 
inscriptions usually begin. No. 2 is totally destroyed. The third sign I may read 
‘the tenth day of the uinal Zoz [Zotz].’ Finally, the fourth is: VIII 4.1. I admit that 
the reading Manik is uncertain, but I believe my interpretation of Group 0d will 
justify it. 

“If that is correct, we have here the date: VIII 4; 10, 4? (5 Cauac), which 
according to my point of view falls in the year 1496, the beginning year of 2 Ahau, 
and to which the number of days 1,426,507 would belong. Compare my article on 
“The Tenth Cycle of the Mayas’ (Globus, vol. 82, No. 9). 

“We come now to Group J, which also contains four signs. While Group a 
actually contains the beginning date of the inscription, Group b according to my 





! This is the day 8 Manik in Férstemann’s system of notation. 
2 This is the date 8 Manik 10 Zotz in Férstemann’s notation. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 199 


point of view shows an earlier unexpressed event 17 days before. Sign 1 is here a 
grasping hand and I see therein a sign of subtraction. No. 2 is 10, under which is the 
date o Zoz, which means as we first learned from Dresden 48 and 50, the eve of 1 
Zoz also 20 Zip. No. 3 is the figure 7, under which I believe I see kin=day. And 
aes 17 days before 10 Zoz is in fact 13 Zip, which actually is given in the fourth 
place. 


If the writer gathers F6rstemann’s meaning correctly, he believed aia 
u. h. was the Initial Series introducing glyph, an identification not sup- 
ported by the original. His reading of aia |. h. as 10 Zotz is equally 
impossible. The grotesque head there portrayed can not be a sign for 
Zotz, even though its coefficient is 10; and his reading of aid |. h. as 8 
Manik, according to his own admission, depends upon the correctness of 
his reading of B1. 

He reads Bia u. h. as a subtraction sign, whereas throughout the Maya 
inscriptions this glyph always means “ending,” and in Period Ending dates 
is never used in any other way. 

The grotesque head of Bid u. h. he identifies as o Zotz, and its coeffi- 
cient as 10 kins. The “subtraction sign” in the preceding glyph he inter- 
prets as indicating that these 1o kins are to be subtracted from 10 Zotz in 
Ala |. h. to give the o Zotz in Bib u.h. Bia |. h., according to his view, is 
7 kins, which are to be counted backward from o Zotz to reach 13 Zip 
recorded in Bib |. h. Finally, he assigns to the date 8 Manik 10 Zotz the 
Initial Series 9.18.2.9.7,” although there is no real foundation for this read- 
ing in either Ai or BI. 

The writer believes that Forstemann’s interpretation of Al, B1 not only 
disagrees with the glyphs actually recorded, but that it is also incompatible 
with Maya practice and thought as set forth in their inscriptions. No single 
instance is recalled where day-signs are omitted and their corresponding 
month-parts given, though the reverse is sometimes the case, as we have 
already seen (see Stele 2, 3 and I for examples, pp. 138, 157 and 178 respec- 
tively). Moreover, the date 9.18.2.9.7 is almost 100 years later than the Initial 
Series of Stela J, and for this reason alone it should be viewed with suspicion. 
All things considered, it seems probable that F6rstemann’s interpretation 
of these two glyph-blocks must be rejected in its entirety. 

Beginning with a2, the text on both the north and south sides is perfectly 
clear until the last two glyph-blocks on the south side, which are effaced. 





1 See Férstemann, 19044, p. 361. 
2 The number of days, 1,426,507, is equal to the above date in Maya chronology, viz: 





9 144,000 = 1,296,000 
18 7,200= 129,600 
2 360= 720 
9 20= 180 
7 i= 7 
1,426,507 


This passage gives the basis for Férstemann’s correlation of Maya and Christian chronology. For further 


discussion of this point, see Appendix IT. 


200 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
North Side, az End of 1 tun 
B2, A3a End of 2 tuns 
B3 End of 3 tuns 
B4 End of 4tuns — ending-sign in B4d u. h. doubtful. 
Asb, Bs End of 5 tuns_ end of a hotun 
A6 End of 6 tuns 
A7 End of 7 tuns 
B7b, ASa End of 8 tuns 
B&D End of gtuns cia u. h. effaced, probably an “ending- 


sign 
South Side, pr |. h., cz End of to tuns — end of a lahuntun 
D2 End of 11 tuns 


End of 12 tuns apparently no “ending-sign”’ 


C61 h2s6 pleas 


End of 13 tuns 
End of 14 tuns 
End of 15 tuns 


end of a hotun 


C7 End of 16 tuns 
CB ian: Effaced probably recorded end of 17 tuns 
Ds u. h. Effaced probably recorded end of 18 tuns 


It is clear from the context that the inscription on the south side is a 
continuation of the inscription on the north side and that the one follows the 
other without break or interruption. It is also clear from a preliminary 
inspection of the text that we have here a record of 16 and perhaps 17 or 
even 18 consecutive tuns, but what is the position of these tuns in the Long 
Count? Where were they counted from? What was their starting-point, 
and why were there probably 18 of them? 

It will be noted in the foregoing summary that the glyph denoting 
“the end of 5 tuns,” asd, 7. ¢., the fifth in the above series, is followed by a 
glyph denoting “the end of a hotun,” Bs; and further, that the glyph 
expressing “the end of 15 tuns,” col. h., is also followed by this same 
hotun-ending sign, pe |. h. This association of the glyph denoting 
“the end of a hotun” with glyphs recording the ends of the fifth and 
fifteenth tuns, respectively, and with no others, would at first sight appear 
to indicate that this series of tuns was counted either from a katun or a 
lahuntun-ending, and probably from the former, since immediately following 
“The end of to tuns,’” c2 |. h., which, of course is both a lahuntun- 
ending and a hotun-ending as well, is the following sign, aie) which 
is identical with Glyph 24 (Maudslay’s numeration) on the Use@z west 
side, already identified as a possible variant of the lahuntun-sign. On the 
other side of this stela, as we have already seen, this glyph follows immediately 
after the date 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu, which the Initial Series on the east side, as 
will appear later, declares to have been 9.13.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu. There- 
fore, in order to have the tenth tun in the series, bring the count forward to 
this date, 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu “End of a lahuntun,”’ it is necessary to have this 
count start from the katun-ending 9.13.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo. 

But there is another explanation which is possible here, to account for 
the record of the hotun-signs and lahuntun-sign in Bs, peo |. h., and c2 
respectively, which, moreover, explains why the unusual number of 18 tuns, 
otherwise of no particular significance to the Maya, should have been 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 201 


recorded on the north and south sides of this monument. If we assume that 
these three glyphs stand for 1,800-day and 3,600-day periods in general, and 
_ not for specific 1,800-day and 3,600-day periods counted from katun-endings 
only, it is possible to count this series of tuns forward from the opening date 
on the west side, namely, 9.12.12.0.0; and with the 18 tuns recorded on the 
north and south sides, to exactly reach the contemporaneous date of this 
stela, 9.13.10.0.0, recorded on its east side. 

This so satisfactorily explains why 18 tuns should have been recorded 
on this monument that the writer believes that it may be accepted that this 
series was counted from 9.12.12.0.0 and that it ended in 9.13.10.0.0, the 
contemporaneous date of Stela J; and further, that its fifth, tenth, and fif- 
teenth tuns fell on 9.12.17.0.0, 9.13.2.0.0, and 9.13.7.0.0 respectively, instead 
of on 9.13.5.0.0, 9.13.10.0.0, and 9.13.15.0.0. And finally, that the last tun 
of the series fell on 9.13.10.0.0 instead of on 9.13.18.0.0, as it would have done 
if the series had been counted from 9.13.0.0.0. 

If this explanation is not accepted, and it is held that the hotun and 
lahuntun signs could only refer to fifth, tenth, and fifteenth tuns, counted 
from katun-endings in the Long Count, as 9.13.0.0.0 for example, it necessi- 
tates the further assumption that the last 8 tuns on the south side were 
9.13.11.0.0 to 9.13.18.0.0 inclusive, that is to say, that they either had not 
yet passed, 7. ¢., were future time when Stela J was erected, or else the north 
side was left blank, and they were added tun by tun after 9.13.10.0.0, as they 
passed. Against this latter hypothesis is the fact that the style of carving 
is the same throughout this monument, and it doubtless may be rejected. 

Summing up this evidence, therefore, it seems probable that there were 
originally a series of 18 tuns on the north and south sides, which were counted 
from the opening date on the west side to reach the contemporaneous as 
well as the Initial Series date on the east side. 

In addition to the record of the signs for the hotuns and lahuntun after 
the ends of the fifth and fifteenth tuns and of the tenth tun respectively, 
there seems to be a five-year periodicity noticeable in other signs of this 
series. For example, the sign following “the end of 1 tun,” B2a, is a gro- 
tesque head surmounting apparently the normal form of the cycle-sign. 
The sign following ‘“‘the end of 6 tuns,”’ B6, 7. ¢., 5 tuns farther on, is the 
moon-sign surmounting the cycle-sign and followed by a grotesque head of 
similar aspect. The sign following “the end of 11 tuns,” c3, 5 tuns farther 
on, is the cycle-sign surmounted by the double Imix and an oval element. 
The sign following “the end of 16 tuns,” p7, still 5 tuns farther on, shows 
the Imix sign and the oval. It is apparent that these four tun-endings, five 
years apart from one another, are followed by glyphs in which the same 
elements recur. 

Athough the other sets show less similarity between the glyphs following 
their respective tun-endings as “the ends of 2,7, and 12 tuns,” “the ends of 
3, 8, and 13 tuns,” and “the ends of 4, 9, and 14 tuns,” on the whole there 
seems to be a general resemblance between the signs in each of these groups. 


202 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


What this resemblance signifies is impossible to say. In the case of the 
fifth, tenth, and fifteenth tuns the following glyphs in each case declare that 
1,800-day periods had come to their ends. If the other groups are analogous, 
the cycle, oval, Imix, and grotesque-head elements after the first, sixth, 
eleventh, and sixteenth tuns may possibly declare that the first fifth of a 
hotun had come to an end in each case. Thus the special elements character- 
izing the glyphs after the second, seventh, and twelfth tuns may signify that 
the second fifth of a hotun had come to an end in each case, etc. 

Unfortunately, the last two glyph-blocks, cs and ps, are badly effaced, 
and it is impossible to tell whether or not they recorded “the end of 17 
tuns” and “‘the end of 18 tuns”’ respectively. 

It will be noticed, however, in this connection, that the tun-signs on the 
south side occupy less space than those on the north side; and that while the 
latter in every case extend the entire height of the glyph-blocks, the former 
in every case occupy only half the height of a glyph-block. Since the upper 
halves of cs and ps are entirely destroyed, it is impossible to tell whether the 
sixteenth and seventeenth tun-endings had been recorded here or not. 

There is nothing on the sides already presented, the north, west, or 
south, which definitely fixes the position of Stela J in the Long Count, 7. ¢., 
which indicates what hotun it was erected to commemorate. It is true the 
date 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu occurs prominently on the west side, but it is not 
accompanied by its corresponding Initial Series and it remains for the 
inscription on the east side to make this fact known. 

The sequence of the glyphs on the east side follows the diagonal turn- 
ings of a woven pattern back and forth. Maudslay, as already stated, has 
worked out the order of reading very carefully, and the notation followed 
here is that suggested by him.! 

Glyph o, near the upper right-hand corner, is the Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph, and this is followed by the Initial Series 9.13.10.0.0 7 Ahau 
3 Cumhu in Glyphs 1 to 6, 12 u. h., as follows: 


Glyph o Initial Series introducing glyph 
9 cycles 
13 katuns 
Io tuns 
© uinals 
o kins 
(7 Ahau) effaced 


3 Cumhu 


Ll 


nb ANA PY 


_ 


This Initial Series is clear, with the exception of the day in Glyph 6, 
which is entirely destroyed, and the month coefficient in Glyph 12 u.h., 
which at first sight appears to be 8. Fortunately, this uncertainty in the 
terminal date is amply compensated for by the clearness of the Initial Series 
number, concerning which there is no doubt. By referring to Goodman’s 
tables, the terminal date corresponding to the Initial Series 9.13.10.0.0 will 
be found to be 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu. The day of this was doubtless recorded 





1 See Maudslay, 1889~1902, vol. 1, pl. 71. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 203 


immediately after the kins of the Initial Series, that is, in Glyph 6, now 
destroyed. The element () between the dots of the month coefficient and 
the month-sign in the{ | upper part of Glyph 12 is probably ornamental 
and not numerical, its) presence being due to the desire to fill the space 
available without distorting the month-sign. Without this ornamental 
element, the month-sign would ‘have been elongated into an unsightly 
shape which has been obviated by the use of this 

decorative element. The hotun which is marked © 
by Stela J is therefore 9.13.10.0.07 Ahau 3 Cumhu. 

Following along the windings of the mat pattern, the next calendric 
glyphs are found at 18 and 19, which respectively record o kins, 10 tuns, and 
13 katuns. This would appear to be but a repetition of the Initial Series 
date with the Cycle 9 understood and the uinal coefficient omitted, thus: 
(9).13.10.(0).o. The omission of the uinal-glyph in a number is exceedingly 
rare. The common practice is to omit the kin-sign and attach its coefficient 
-to the uinal-sign, thus: @DQ0 3.0. But here the uinal-sign is omitted and 
the kin coefficient is [BEV — attached to its own glyph. Such omissions 
occur only whenthesign ( ‘omitted has a coefficient of o, as the uinal 
has here.’ 

The next calendric sign is Glyph 27, which appears to be 7 Lamat, 
not the regular Lamat sign, however, but the Venus-variant already de- 
scribed in connection with Stela 23. (See p. 150.) This character occurs at 
the edge of the mat pattern and has been somewhat mutilated in consequence 
so as to fit the requirements of the space available. Passing over the next 
four glyphs, there is reached in 32 and 33 a distance number composed of Q 
tuns, uinals, and kins. / 

Glyph 320 is very clearly 6 tuns. Glyph 32a is 11 uinals, the dot being 
rather small and squeezed in between the bars and the border, and Glyph 33 
is either 11 or 12 kins. The kin coefficient now appears as 11, but there is 
room for just one more dot to its left, and indeed there is a decided pro- 
tuberance of the stone there as if a dot had been effaced, which would make 
it 12. Moreover, if used at 12, the day 7 Lamat in 27 can be connected by 
this distance-number with the Initial Series terminal date, for if 6.11.12 is 
counted forward from the day 7 Lamat, the day 7 Ahau will be reached. 


















1A similar, although not identical, case occurs on Altar U here at Copan. Glyph a2 (Maudslay, 1889-1902 
vol. 1, pl. 98) of this text shows a tun-sign pees surmounted by a coefficient of 13 and preceded by another cf 


2. The context shows that 13 tuns, 2 ~ uinals, and o kins are recorded here. In other words, since the 
kins are at 0, both kin-sign and coefficient as well as the uinal-sign, have been omitted and the uinal 
coefficient is attached directly to the tun- sign (see p. 301). 

Another case of this kind is found on Stela 12 at Yaxchilan. Glyph a6 (Maler, 1903, pl. 76) of 


this text shows a tun-sign surmounted by a coeficient of 10 and preceded by another of 6. The context 
shows that 10 tuns,ouinals, and 6 kins are recorded here. And since the uinals are at 0, both the uinal- 
sign and its coefficient, as well as the kin-sign, have been omitted and the kin coefhcient attached directly 
to the tun-sign. The last two cases are diametrically opposed to each other. In the former the kin- 
sign and coefficient are omitted and the uinal coefficient attached directly to the tun-sign. In the latter the uinal- 
sign and coefficient are omitted and the kin coefficient attached directly to the tun-sign. An inspection of these 
two glyphs reveals no element or character which could indicate this difference, nor indeed did such probably exist. 
The different procedure in each case was doubtless governed by the whim of the sculptor. 





204 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


But we have seen that this is the day of our Initial Series terminal date, 7. ¢., 
9.13.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu; and it is therefore probable that the 7 Ahau, 
reached by counting 6.11.12 forward from 7 Lamat, is the day 9.13.10.0.0 
7 Ahau 3 Cumhu, and from this the Initial Series of the day 7 Lamat in 
Glyph 27 can be shown to have been 9.13.3.6.8 7 Lamat 1 Mol, as follows: 


9.13.10. 0.0 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu 
G.11.02 
0.130.3..0. 8 7 Laimatiavio. 


This latter date is just nine and one-third tonalamatls earlier than the 
lahuntun-ending commemorated by this monument, which recalls the fact 
that four-fifths of a tonalamatl was also recorded on Stela I. There follows 
a résumé of the chronological parts of this inscription: 

West side, I, 24, 23, 16, 17 (9).12.12.0.0 1 Ahau (8 Zotz) 


TA to ates Poe End of Cycle 13 

29, 30 End of Cycle 13 

eee (9.13.10.0.0) 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu 
Northside, Ar 6.10.0.0 

BI (10.0.0.0.0) 7 Ahau 18 Zip 

BI End of Cycle 10 

A2 End of i tun (9.12.13.0.0) 

B2, A3a End of 2 tuns (9.12.14.0.0) 

B3 End of 3 tuns (9.12.15.0.0) 

B4 End of 4 tuns (g.12.16.0.0) 

As, DBs End of 5 tuns (9.12.17.0.0) end of a hotun 

A6 End of 6 tuns (9.12.18.0.0) 

A7 End of 7 tuns (9.12.19.0.0) 

B7b, A8a End of 8 tuns (9.13. 0.0.0) 
Southside, B8d ‘End of 9 tuns (9.13. 1.0.0) 

pil. h., cz End of to tuns (9.13. 2.0.0) end of a lahuntun 

D2 End of 11 tuns (9.13. 3.0.0) 

D3 u. h. End of 12 tuns (9.13. 4.0.0) 


eglihiypaw ht End of 13 tuns (9.13. 5.0.0) 
ocil. hg bsciie i End of 14 tuns (9.13. 6.0.0) 


cé |. h., D6 End of 15 tuns (9.13. 7.0.0) end of a hotun 
C7 End of 16 tuns (9.13. 8.0.0) 
C8 ah, End of 17 tuns (9.13. 9.0.0)? 
D8 u. h. End of 18 tuns (9.13.10.0.0)? 
East side, 0, 1-6, 12 u. h. 9.13.10. 0. Oo (7 Ahau) 3 Cumhu (Initial Series) 
18, 19 (9)13.10.(0) Oo 
27 (9.13. 3. 6. 8) 7 Lamat (1 Mol) 
32022 eee 


(9.13.10. 0. o 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu) 
Stela J was probably the first monument erected after the Great Plaza 
was laid out. At least, it is the earliest monument which has a definite 
correlation with a structure (Mound 3) belonging to the Great Plaza. 


STELA 5. 
Provenance: At Group 8, 1 kilometer west of the Main Struc- 
ture. (See plate 3.) 
Date: 9.13.15.0.0 13 Ahau18 Pax (??) or 


9-14. 0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan (?).1 
Text, (a) photograph: Spinden, 1913, plate 19, 1 and 2 (parts of front and back only). 
(b) drawing: — plate 19, c and d. 
References: Gordon, 1896, pp. 35, 38, 42. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 16, 67. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 159, 161, 164 and table 1. 





1 For other monuments recording these same hotun-endings, see Appendix VIII. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 205 


Maudslay probably refers to Stela 5 in his introduction in the following 
passage: “There is a broken monolith lying in the scrub to the north of the 
track to Cachapa.”! (See plate 3.) This could hardly refer to Stela 6, the 
only other stela in this vicinity, since Stela 6 was still unbroken when Gordon 
first visited Copan several years after Maudslay was there.? Stela 5 is in 
fact shattered into a number of pieces, most of which fortunately have been 
recovered. The most important piece, that presenting the beginning of the 
Initial Series, was found by Spinden, as already noted (p. 164), in 1912, 
built into the stone wall on the south side of the road leading from the village 
to the Main Structure about opposite the monument. At this point there is 
a confused jumble of sculptured fragments, the wreckage of Stela 5 and its 
two altars, and when the wall was built this broken material was incorporated 
in it. Notwithstanding the fact that in 1916 the writer made a thorough 
examination of the stones in this wall for a distance of 125 meters, 7. ¢., 63 
meters each way from the stela, not a piece of it was found, and it is possible 
that the fragment still missing was broken into very small pieces, which are 
now unrecognizable. However, Spinden’s fortunate discovery of the piece 
presenting the Initial Series, together with the writer’s discovery of a Sec- 
ondary Series on the opposite side, makes possible very close, if not indeed 
exact, dating of the monument. 

The front and back of Stela 5 are sculptured with human figures, one 
having a grotesque and the othera human face. According to Gordon, these 
faced east and west.’ The narrow north and south sides each have a single 
column of 10 glyph-blocks, making a total of 20 for the entire text. On the 
basis of this arrangement of the design, Stela 5 may be assigned to Class 5 
the second example of this class thus far encountered, Stela 3 being the first. 
Facing the figure with the human face, the Initial Series is presented on the 
left side. (See plate 19, c.) 

The Initial Series introducing glyph is at a1. The next glyph, a2 u. h., 
is doubtless 9 cycles. The coefficient is badly effaced, although sufficient 
remains to show that it was a normal type of the human head. The cycle- 
sign is a human head with the clasped hand on the lower jaw. The lower 
half of a2 is clearer. The normal form of the katun-sign shows unmistakably 
in A2b |. h., and its coefficient in a2a |. h. is one of the two head-variants for 
13. (See Bowditch, 1910, plate 16, or Morley, 1915, figure 52.) 

The tun coefficient a3a u. h., although it is better preserved, is less 
certain. The fleshless lower jaw appears, clearly denoting that the number 
is above 10, but the upper part of the head is indistinct, rendering identifica- 
tion difficult. The square irid would appear to indicate 14. (Compare this 
glyph with Bowditch, 1910, plate 16, or Morley, 1915, figure 53.) 

The uinal-sign appears in a3) |. h., but following this there is a 
break, the missing fragment having two and a quarter glyph-blocks, a3a 
|. h., a4, and as, including the uinal coefficient. a4 u. h. was doubtless the 











1Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 16. 2 Gordon, 1896, plate 7. Plbed spi 35s 


206 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


kin-sign and coefficient and a4 1. h. the day-sign and coefficient; and finally, 
AS, the first two glyphs of the Supplementary Series. 

The next two glyph-blocks, a6 and a7, show the closing glyphs of 
the Supplementary Series, the last, Glyph A, appearing in a7 1. h. as u. h. 
is the month of the Initial Series terminal date, and is very clearly 18 Kayab. 
The writer gave these pieces of Stela 5 a very close study in 1912 and again 
in 1915 and 1916, and feels certain of the above identifications. This Initial 
Series therefore may be deciphered as follows: 


AI Initial Series introducing glyph 
Azu.h. 9g cycles 

A2\.h. 13 katuns 

A3u.h. over 10 tuns and best as 14 

A3 1. h. ? uinals (missing) 

Agu.h. 0, 5, 10 or 15! kins (missing) 
Aaloh; ? ? (missing) 


Agsu.h. 18 Kayab 


The next step in deciphering this date is to ascertain the places in the 
second half (7. ¢., after Tun 10) of Katun 13 of Cycle 9, where 18 Kayab, 
the month of the Initial Series terminal date, could have occurred. These 
will be found to have been as follows: 

(1),6.1 3h 1-00 3 Ahau 18 Kayab 

(2) O:17-12.0-06 4 Chicchan 18 Kayab 
(3) 9.13.13.0.10 5 Oc 18 Kayab 

(4) 9.13.14.0.15 6 Men 18 Kayab 

(S¥ 9.14, 15.i.°0 7 Ahau 18 Kayab 

(6) 9.13.16.1. 5 8 Chicchan 18 Kayab 
(7) 0.8328 7.1.50 g Oc 18 Kayab 

(8) 9.13.18.1.15 10 Men 18 Kayab 

(9) 9.13.19.2. 0 11 Ahau 18 Kayab 

It is certain that the Initial Series on Stela 5 is one of the foregoing, 
although, because of the loss of a3 1. h., and a4, and the failure to identify 
A3a u. h. exactly, it is impossible by a mere inspection of the text to decide 
which. Arguing from antecedent probability, the kins would be more likely 
to be o than 5, 10, or 15, which would give the day-sign Ahau, instead of 
Chicchan, Oc, or Men. If this assumption is correct, all but the first, fifth, 
and ninth of the above readings would be eliminated, and of these, since it 
is a tun-ending, the first is the more likely to be correct. It seems unsafe, 
however, to make this perfectly legitimate assumption here, because of the 
nature of the first two glyph-blocks on the opposite side of the monument, 
namely, B1 and B2, which clearly record a Secondary Series composed of 15 
kins (B1b), and possibly some uinals (B2a). The kins of this number are 
perfectly clear in Bib, and it is barely possible that B2a may record some 
number of uinals. 

Leaving this Secondary Series number indeterminate for the present, 
let us continue the inspection of our text. Passing over the next two glyph- 





1 Since the month coefficient in the Initial Series terminal date is 18, the kin coefiicient must have been one of 
these four numbers, corresponding with the days Ahau, Chicchan, Oc, and Men respectively. This latter is true 
because only these four days can have a corresponding month coefficient of 18. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 207 


blocks, B3 and B4, we reach a break in the inscription, Bs, the upper half 
of B6 being gone. Fortunately, the lower half of the latter is sufficiently 
preserved to show that it had recorded the day 1o Ahau, both the coefficient 
and day-sign showing very plainly; and following this, in B7a u. h. is the 
month 3 Pax, both the coefficient and month-sign being again very clear. 

The date ro Ahau 3 Pax occurred in Cycle 9 nearest the Initial Series 
date on this monument at the following places: 

Q-11: 1. 4.0 “10 Ahauis’Pax 

Git4o03s1 7-088 LO rials bax 

9.16. 6.12.0 10 Ahau 3 Pax 
And since the second is the only one falling in the same katun as the Initial 
Series terminal date of the stela, it may probably be accepted as the value 
intended here. 

Returning once more to our table of possible values for the Initial Series 
itself, it will be found that the fourth, 9.13.14.0.15, is only 1.15 (35 days) 
later than this date. But we have already seen that 15 kins are recorded in 
B1b, and possibly 1 uinal in B2a, and we are therefore justified in assuming 
that the Initial Series recorded on this monument probably is 9.13.14.0.15 
6 Men 18 Kayab, and that the Secondary Series number in Bid, B2a was 
counted backward from it. In corroboration of this reading, it should be 
remembered that the preliminary inspection of the tun coefficient gave 14 
as its best value. A summary of the count follows: 

9.13.14. 0.15 6 Men 18 Kayab 
1.15 backward 
Hiftiis.07..00) 10 Ahau4) Pax 

Neither of these dates, however, is a hotun-ending, and for this reason 
we must probably look farther for the contemporaneous date of the stela. 
Unfortunately, the last three glyph-blocks where this matter was probably 
recorded, Bs—B10, are in very bad condition, although traces of several num- 
bers appear, particularly in Bs u. h., Bs |. h., Boa u. h., and B9b u. h. 

The first of these, Bs u. h., has a coefficient of 1, 2, or 3 and hardly can 
have a bearing here, as the head to which it is attached is neither a day or 
month-sign or a period-glyph. The next, however, Bsa |. h., has a coefficient 
of 9 or 14. Could this be Katun 14? Following this in Bo u. h. there are 
faint traces of what may have been a Calendar Round date. The coefficients 
may possibly be 6 and 13 respectively, although these readings are very 
doubtful indeed.’ 

The two hotuns most likely to have been commemorated by Stela 5, 
because they are nearest its two known dates, are 9.13.15.0.0 13 Ahau 18 
Pax and 9.14.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan; and we have just seen that the terminal 
date of the latter may possibly be recorded in Bo u. h. and perhaps the period 
itself in Bsal.h. At least Bo u. h. more closely resembles 6 Ahau 13 Muan 
than it does 13 Ahau 18 Pax. Unfortunately, the last two glyph-blocks on 
this side of Stela 5 are so badly weathered that it is impossible to say what 
had been recorded here, and it is therefore unwise to press decipherment 





1 These doubtful coefficients are not clearly shown in the drawing of this glyph-block in plate 19, d. 


208 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


farther than to point out that this stela probably dates either from 
9.13.15.0.0 or from 9.14.0.0.0. 

Neither of the altars now associated with Stela 5 were originally corre- 
lated with it, as we have already seen, and, indeed, if either of the above 
dates is correct, an altar with glyphs would hardly be necessary, since the 
stela itself probably recorded the hotun-ending it was erected to commem- 
orate. Some sort of an altar doubtless was originally associated with it, but 
not necessarily one with an inscription. A summary of the text follows: 


AI-A4, A8 u. h. ol NW esa 6 Men 18 Kayab 
Bib, B2a tb backward 

B6d |. h., B7a u. h. 14s. 17810 10 Ahau 3 Pax 

Bo u. h. 9.14. 0. 0. O 6 Ahau 13 Muan?r? 
B8a I. h. End of Katun 14??? 


While this interpretation is not as satisfactory as could be desired, it is 
probably correct, for even if the suggested readings for Bs I. h. and Bo u. h. 
be rejected, the certain identification of the katun coefficient as 13 and of 
the tun coefficient as above 10, dates Stela 5 within Io years of its true 
position in Maya chronology, 7. ¢., between 9.13.10.0.0 and 9.14.0.0.0. 

One other point remains to be considered in connection with Stela 5. 
It will be remembered that Altar X was recovered from the foundations 
of this stela (p. 63). Below Altar X, however, a still more archaic 
sculpture was found, a crudely fashioned human figure, the lower legs and 
forearms of which are drawn tightly against the body, so that no part of it 
protrudes from the block, the whole effect being very clumsy and primitive. 
The figure is headless, and there are no glyphs inscribed on it. An almost 
identical figure was found under Altar Y, which had been similarly reused 
in the foundations of Stela 4 during the Great Period at the Great Plaza 
(p. 356). These two archaic monuments (see figure 67, a and J, respec- 
tively), representing, although crudely, the human figure in the round, 
Spinden believes to be the earliest attempts at sculpture in stone now 
extant at Copan, and with the possible exception of Stela 20, this appears 
as not improbable. He has placed the following description of them at the 
writer’s disposal: 

“Under Altars X and Y were found two crudely sculptured figures of a still 
earlier artistic type, unfortunately headless and battered. Although undatable, 
since they are devoid of inscriptions, these two sculptures may safely be termed 
the earliest examples of art in stone so far found at Copan. They appear to be relics 
of the low, widespread culture that preceded the Maya civilization, and they can be 
matched clesele by archaic figures in stone from El Salvador and the highlands of 
Guatemala. 

“The sculpture under Stela 5 is the simpler of the two, and it is possible to 
make out the arms and legs of a squatting figure carved in low relief on a heavy 
boulder. The sculpture under Stela 4 is somewhat more elaborate, since the heavy 
torso is adorned with feathers. No careful study was made of this stone, which 1s 
broken in two pieces (not to mention the missing head) and measures slightly under 
a meter in height. A hasty field sketch shows the arms bent with the hands resting 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 209 


on the full paunch. A number of feathers hang downward from the arms and from 
the shoulder blades at the back. There are markings around the neck, that make 
a collar decoration, and on the breast there is a large ring. The feet and legs do not 
show clearly at the bottom of this carved boulder, but there are details, difficult to 
make out, which take their places. At the base of the back stands an ornamental 
detail of feathers that rise and then droop over on either side. 

“The figure under Stela 5 is of the Archaic type pure and simple, while that 
under Stela 4 would seem to be transitional in type. While it shows the squat 
seated figure with limbs carved in low relief, and arranged in an attitude common 
among Archaic sculptures, it also shows a decorative or symbolic use of feathers 
that points to an awakened skill. During the long age of the far-flung and slowly 
developing Archaic culture, art was simple and direct and devoid of elaborate 
symbolism or formalized designs. ‘The Maya of the lowlands gave the first expres- 
sion of composite forms arising out of religious concepts. On the very early statuette 
of San Andres Tuxtla we see a composite of human, bird, and serpent characters. 
So too on this early Copan product, it may be that some composite creature was 
intended, some primitive plumed animal or dragon. 

“In the more or less arid country south and west of Copan, where the Archaic 
culture had flourished for many centuries before Copan was founded, many examples 
of stone sculptures in the purely Archaic type occur. These are characterized by 
bulging eyes, flat noses, protruding lips, simple collars, arms and legs in low flat 
relief, and heavy squat bodies. The arms and legs are usually arranged in one of 
two fashions—either they are flexed against the body with knees up and elbows 
down, or the legs are bent horizontally round the base of the body, while the hands, 
with forearms horizontal and elbows pressed against the side, are made to rest on 
the breast or lower down on the abdomen. Sometimes there is a ring on the front 
of the body intended to represent the navel, or perhaps the heart. For instance, 
at the side of the road leading from Guatemala City to Mixco there is a modern 
gate adorned with two stone figures of the Archaic type, both of which show clearly 
enough this ring on the heart. (See figure 67, c.) These sculptures were found on 
the nearby site of an ancient city of great extent where heads of pottery figurines of 
the Archaic type are mingled with those of Maya type, and where several sculp- 
tured monoliths clearly show Maya influence in hieroglyphs and other features that 
possibly came on after the city was founded. In the American Museum of Natural 
History there is a similar squat figure of granite from the ruins of Santa Cruz 
Quiché. While it is probably true that sculptures of the Archaic type persisted 
on the highlands long after they had been succeeded on the lowlands by advanced 
types of art, still the general case in favor of these two broken figures found under 
Stelz 4 and 5 respectively at Copan being examples of protohistoric sculpture, 
1. €., before 9.0.0.0.0, must be regarded as very strong.” 


Stela 5 is the last monument now known at Copan which dates from 
the Middle Period; but before proceding to review the sculptures of this 
period, it is first necessary to describe a piece, Fragment Y’, which probably 
should also be included therein. 


FRAGMENT Y’. 


Provenance: Original position unknown, found in a wall near the 
house of Pablo Urrutia north of the road leading from 
the village to the Main Structure, and about midway 
between Group 8 and the Rio Sesesmil. (See plate 3.) 

Date: Middle Period? 

Text, drawing: figure 35. 


210 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Fragment Y’ is 25 cm. long and 20 cm. high. It was found in a stone 
wall near the house of Pablo Urrutia, north of the road leading from the 
Main Structure to the village in the general vicinity of Group 8. Part of 
one glyph only has been preserved, which is very clearly Glyph C of the 
Supplementary Series. (See figure 35.) Note the moon-sign, hand, and 
head elements, all components of this sign. It is impos- 
sible to tell from this piece whether it had been part of a 
stela, altar, or some mosaic. The carving is clear, and 
the relief rather lower than that of the Great Period, 
for which reason it has been assigned to the Middle 
Period. In fact, the only certain thing about this frag- 
ment is that originally it accompanied an Initial Series. 





a Sane ae. Fic. 35.—Inscription 
This is so because Supplementary Series are never re- on Fragment Y’. 


corded without accompanying Initial Series, and the 
single sign preserved is surely Glyph C of the Supplementary Series. 


The history of Copan during the Middle Period may be summarized 
briefly as follows: Old Copan (Group 9), the chief settlement of the region 
in the Early Period, doubtless carried over into the Middle Period as a place 
of first importance. Indeed, before the final concentration at the Main 
Structure took place there was even a more extended occupation of the 
valley, and more distant settlements were established. 

As early as 9.11.0.0.0 the branch of the Maya living in this region had 
accumulated sufficient reserves of labor and food, and found themselves 
possessed of adequate administrative machinery to warrant a considerable 
territorial expansion. On this latter date no less than 7 stele and their 
accompanying altars were erected in almost as many outlying settlements, 
varying in distance from 1 to 14 kilometers from Old Copan. At Hacienda 
Grande, 3.5 kilometers west (Group 13), in the neighborhood of Stele 12 
and 10, on the hills east and west of Old Copan (Groups 3 and 12 respec- 
tively), in the valley itself at the Main Structure, 2 kilometers east of Old 
Copan, the last soon to become the principal center in the whole surround- 
ing region, at Stela 13, 8.5 kilometers distant, near the modern village of 
Santa Rita (Group 2), and finally 14 kilometers off at Santa Rita itself 
(Group 1), settlements had been founded and were flourishing. In short, 
the intensive occupation of the whole valley was at last under way. 

With the resources of the surrounding country under control, the next 
step seems to have been the selection of a site for the religious and govern- 
mental center of the tribe, 7. ¢., the capital. For some unknown reason Old 
Copan does not appear to have been considered as worthy of this honor. 
Perhaps the site was not large enough. At least, it was not able to hold 
its own from this time on, either in size or in the number of its sculptured 
remains as compared with the group 2 kilometers farther east, that is to 
say, the Main Structure proper. This latter group may have been 
founded some time during the Early Period, since the complexity 


-_ 
2 

4 

“4 


MORLEY. 
M is PLATE 23 





Altar I’. Inscriptions on (d) the east side, (e) the north side, and (f) the west side. Drawn from the original. 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 211 


of its Acropolis, as exposed by the river, indicates a long period of growth. 
In the vertical section cut by the river a number of paved plaza-floors at 
different levels, as well as the walls of earlier buildings and drains, may be 
distinguished. To account for this architectural complex, even as it was 
during the Middle Period, it is necessary to postulate a considerable antiquity 
of origin, extending back into the Early Period. Probably from the 
earliest times the fertility of the land along the river, subject as it was to 
annual overflow, had been recognized, and it is quite likely that a settlement 
had been made here very early. But that it did not become the most impor- 
tant in the valley until after 9.11.15.0.0, the date of Stela 1, is probable from 
the facts already presented. Possibly the erection of Stele 10 and 12, which 
antedate the building of the Great Plaza by at least 25 years, in such a way 
that they define a line of sight across the Main Structure, may have had some- 
thing to do with increasing the importance of an earlier settlement already 
located here. 

The Main Structure may have been started in the Early Period, but 
if so, it did not assume the important position it later enjoyed until the 
Middle Period was well under way. Thus it seems likely that most, if not 
all, of the monuments found there, which antedate 9.11.15.0.0,! and some 
possibly even of later date,’ can not be regarded as in situ. The Great Plaza, 
we have seen, was not laid out until at least 10 years later (9.12.5.0.0), and 
possibly not for another 25 years (9.13.10.0.0). 

By 9.13.10.0.0, however (the date of Stela J), the Main Structure seems 
to have become the chief settlement in the valley, and Old Copan fell back 
into a position of secondary importance. By this time the Great Plaza was 
probably laid out in its final form, and its construction was well under way, 
if not indeed actually nearing completion. But even with the adoption of the 
Main Structure as the principal settlement or capital, the practice of erecting 
monuments in the outlying communities does not appear to have been discon- 
tinued altogether. Old Copan, as we shall see later (see p. 334), was occupied 
down to the close of the Great Period, and at least two other groups besides 
the Main Structure—No. 10, that near the modern cemetery, and No. 8, 
that just east of the Rio Sesesmil—had later monuments erected at them.° 
(See plate 3.) 

Of the monuments at the Main Structure dating from the last half of 
the Middle Period, with the exception of Stele I and J, that is to say, Altars 
K, H’, and I’, not one is in situ, strictly speaking, probably having been 
carried to their present positions from other earlier ones. 

The closing katun of the Middle Period, 9.14.0.0.0 to 9.15.0.0.0, does not 
seem to be represented by any monuments, either large or small. Perhaps 
there was a concentration of energy elsewhere, possibly all available labor 





1 Stel 16, 17, E, and P, Altars Y and A’ of the Early Period, and perhaps Stele 2 and 3 of the Middle Period. 
2 Altars K, H’,and I’. 


3 Stela 8 (9.17.12.6.2) was found practically in situ at what is now the modern cemetery (Group 10), and 
Stele 6 and 5 (9.12.10.0.0 and 9.13.15.0.0 or 9.14.0.0.0 respectively) were found, also probably zm situ, at the 
small group of mounds just east of the Rio Sesesmil (Group 8). 


212 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


was being expended upon the erection of the mounds and terraces in the 
neighborhood of the Great Plaza (the Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26 
for example, see page 272), at least no monuments dating from this katun 
have been found, and as already pointed out, the last monument of the 
period, Stela 5, was not even erected at the Main Structure. 

We may say, in closing, that by the middle of the Middle Period the 
tide of concentration had finally turned toward the settlement standing 
where the Main Structure later was to grow up, and that although all future 
monuments were not erected there, the great majority were. This settlement 
doubtless grew at the expense of the others, and became, during the Great 
Period, the principal city of the region, and indeed one of the very largest in 
the Old Empire.’ 

Turning to a more detailed consideration of the monuments of the 
Middle Period, it will be found that there are twelve stele and twelve altars. 
Of the latter, however, all except five are now correlated with their original 
stele, or if not now actually with them, have been assigned to them in the 
foregoing pages, as, for example, the East Altar of Stela 5 with Stela 1, which, 
after the practice followed in classifying the monuments of the Early Period, 
reduces the number of altars from twelve to five.’ 

The stele of the Middle Period may be arranged into three groups 
according to the arrangement of their designs, as follows: 

3.4 Stelz having inscriptions on all four faces: Stela 12, 10, 19, 13, and I. 

4. Stele having inscriptions:on three faces, the fourth being carved with the 

representation of the human figure: Stele 2, 23, 1, I, and 6. 


5. Stele having inscriptions on two alternate faces, the remaining two being 
carved with representations of the human figure: Stele 3 and 5. 


Although the stele of the Middle Period differ in the arrangement of 
their designs,’ all of them have one important point in common, namely, all 
stele of the Middle Period present Initial Series. A list of these follows: 


Stela 12 9.10.15. 0. 6 Ahau 13 Mac 
Stela, 2°9:10.15.-0. 
Stela 23 9.10. ? ? 
Stela 10 9.10.19.13. 
Stela 19 9.10.19.15. 
Stela 13 9.11. 0. 0. 
9.0: O04 0, 
Stela eee Oo. O. 
ptela’I°O.17.16.14. 
Stelay 1 oz 3.14. 
Stela 6 9.12.10. 0. 9 Ahau 18 Zotz 
stela J 9.13.10. 0. 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu 
Stela §' 9.13.14. 0.15 6 Men 18 Kayab? 


1z2 Ahau 8 Ceh 

8 Ahau 13 Ceh and 
12 Ahau 8 Ceh 
11 Ahau 8 Zotz 

5 Ahau 8 Uo 


He co biesd Gio ado 








1 For a review of the contemporaneous history of the other Old Empire cities, see Chapter V, pp. 433-442. 

2 See Appendix IX. 

3 It is evident in the cases of Stele FE, 19, 13, and I, that the associated altars have inscriptions which are to be 
regarded only as continuations of the texts on their respective stele; and further, that textually considered, they 
can not be regarded as independent monuments. 

4 Classes 1 and 2, see p. 125, are not represented in the Middle Period. 

5 Such differences are not vital, being probably due to the increasing importance and elaboration of the human 
figure and its attire. As we shall see in the Great Period, the latter finally became so ornate as to crowd the glyph 
panels off the adjacent faces altogether. (See Stele D, M, H, F, and 4.) 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 213 


A glance at the preceding table at once discloses a very different state of 
affairs from that found in connection with the stele of the Early Period. In 
the case of the latter all the Initial Series which can be surely deciphered 
and probably even all those that can only be approximately determined, 
with the exception of Stela E, were found to record hotun-endings. In ne 
above table, on the contrary, where all the dates given save one are certain, 
five of them, or nearly half, do not record hotun-endings or even tun-eadings. 
Here then are a number of apparent exceptions to the second generalization 
which was made in connection with the stele of the Early Period, namely 
that all the stele of that period record hotun-endings. That Fee en 
tions, however, among the Middle Period stele, are apparent rather than 
real, and are due to the presence of Secondary Series which bring their 
respective Initial Series forward to hotun-endings, has already been explained 
but it appears advisable to review these cases in the present connection. 

We have seen that not all of the foregoing Initial Series indicate the 
contemporaneous dates of the monuments upon which they are severally 
inscribed. In fact, only four of the above twelve stele, Nos. 13, 3,? 6, and J 
have their contemporaneous dates expressed by their Initial Series. In he 
other eight cases, the Initial Series record earlier dates, which are brought 
forward by Secondary Series either on the stele themselves or on the asso- 
ciated altars, to their contemporaneous dates, which in every case but one 
or two (Stela 10 and possibly Stela 5), are also hotun-endings. 

Taking up the first group of these apparent exceptions, 7. ¢., those where 
the hotun-ending is recorded somewhere on the stela itself, it will be remem- 
bered that even although the Initial Series of Stele 12 and 2 are themselves 
hotun-endings, viz, 9.10.15.0.0, neither may probably be assigned to this 
period, but that, on the contrary, both probably date from the following 
hotun, 9.11.0.0.0, which is recorded as a Period Ending date on each. 

Stela 23 presents a similar case. Even although it is impossible to 
decipher the Initial Series other than as occurring somewhere in Katun 10, 
the current date of the monument, a hotun-ending is recorded as a Period 
Ending date elsewhere in the text. 

Another slightly different condition is that represented by Stela 1 and 
probably by Stela 5. Although the Initial Series of Stela 1 is not itself the 
hotun-ending this monument was erected to commemorate, there is present 
in the text a Secondary Series leading from the Initial Series terminal date 
to that hotun-ending. This was also probably the case with Stela 5, although 
the destruction of the last three glyph-blocks prevents. the reading of the 
final calculations. 

Still a third condition is that presented by Stela I and probably by Stelz 
19 and ro and their associated altars. Although the Initial Series on Stela I 


1 The reading of Stela 5 the writer regards as practically certain, in spite of the fragmentary condition of the 
original.  Stela 23, however, is doubtful, possibly the month coefficient, being 8, might indicate the day was Ahau, 


but with so many terms wanting it is impossible to go farther with its decipherment. 
2Jn the case of Stela 3, where there are two Initial Series, one records the end of Cycle 9, viz, 9.0.0.0.c, and 


the other the current hotun-ending and contemporaneous date, 9.11.0.0.0, 








214 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


is not itself the hotun-ending this monument was erected to commemorate, 
there is present in the text on the associated altar a Secondary Series leading 
from the Initial Series terminal date on the stela to the current hotun-ending 
on the altar. That this same condition probably also obtained on Stela 19 
and its altar we have already seen; and since the Initial Series of Stela Io is 
only 100 days earlier than a hotun-ending, the same one in fact that Stela 19 
was erected to commemorate, and indeed only. 40 days earlier than the 
Initial Series of Stela 19, it is probable that the altar formerly associated 
with Stela 10, now missing, also had a Secondary Series bringing forward 
its Initial Series to the current hotun-ending. ‘This latter case is one of the 
possible exceptions noted above, but in view of the close connection apparent 
between Stela I and its altar and probably between Stela 19 and its altar, 
it is likely that the same relation existed between Stela 10 and its now missing 
altar, in which event it can not be regarded as an exception at all. 

The study of the foregoing shows that all the stele of the Middle Period, 
when taken into consideration with their respective altars, are hotun-markers, 
and we may therefore make this fact the basis for our second generalization: 


All stele of the Middle Period date from hotun-endings; sometimes these 
hotun-endings are recorded as the Initial Series terminal dates of the stelz; some- 
times they appear as Period Ending dates on the stele, either with or without 
Secondary Series connecting them with the Initial Series terminal dates; sometimes 
they even appear as Period Ending dates on the associated altars, anes with or 
without the proper Secondary Series to connect them with the Initial Series terminal 
dates of their respective stelz. 


The above generalization brings out the important fact that, in at least 
some cases, the associated altars are the actual hotun-markers. But we have 
already seen that on two occasions, 9.12.0.0.0 and 9.13.0.0.0, the hotuns 
were marked by pairs of altars without the erection of accompanying stele; 
at least, stela marking these particular hotun-endings have yet to be found. 
Moreover, these four inscriptions all begin with Initial Series, just like the 
stele.’ 

It seems possible, therefore, that, beginning with the Middle Period, 
altars as well as stele were used independently for marking the hotuns, and 
furthermore, that the functions of the two types, in some cases at least, 
began to merge.’ The only alternative explanation is that the stele origi- 
nally associated with the West Altar of Stela 5 and the altar of Stela 1 on the 
one hand, and with Altars H’ and I’ on the other, have disappeared, which 
the writer does not believe. 





1 This is also true of the East Altar of Stela 5, which probably was originally designed for use with Stela 1. 

2 This is particularly true at Quirigua (plate 1), where four consecutive hotuns there, from 9.17.10.0.0 to 
g.18.5.0.0 inclusive, are marked by low altar-like monuments, the so-called Zo6bmorphs B, G,O, and P. These 
are preceded by Stelx S, H, J, F, D, E, A, and C, marking the hotuns 9.15.15.0.0 to9.17.5.0.0 inclusive, and are 
followed by Stele I and K and Structure 1, marking the hotuns 9.18.10.0.0 to9.19.0.0.Oinclusive. It is obvious 
from the above dates that in spite of their widely differing shapes, being flat and oval instead of long and rectan- 
gular, the functions of these four monuments at Quirigua are identical with those of the stel# there, namely, that 
of marking the current hotuns, and to all intents and purposes they are to be considered as much hotun-markers 
as are the stele themselves. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 215 


Assuming that altars as well as stele were used for hotun-markers, we 
have the following hotun-endings marked in the Middle Period: 


Stela 12 and 2 (doubtful) g.10.15.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Mac 
stele 12, 2,,10, 19, 23, 13, and 39.11. 0.0.0) 12 Ahau 8-Ceh 
Stela 1 and the East Altar of Stela 5 9.11.15.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Mol 
The West Altar of Stela 5 and the 


altar of Stela 1 9.12. 0.0.0 10Ahau 8 Yaxkin 
Stela I and altar OA.Ee OL 3 Ahau 3 Xul 
Stela 6 9.12.10.0.0 9g Ahau 18 Zotz 
Altars H’ and I’ 9.13. 0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo 
Stela J 9.13.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu 
Stela 5 §.13,15:0.0 13 Ahau 18 Pax, or 


9.14. 0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan 


It is apparent from the foregoing that while every katun-ending in the 
Middle Period is represented by one or more monuments, only two of the 
five lahuntun-endings and only two or possibly three of the ten first and third 
hotun-endings are represented by monuments. In other words, it would ap- 
pear as though efforts were not made to erect monuments on every first and 
third hotun in the Middle Period or even on every second hotun, namely, 
every lahuntun, but only on every fourth hotun, namely, every katun. 

These gaps in the sequence of the monuments during the Middle Period 
are shown in the following table: 


9.10. 5.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Pax 

A [9:10:10.0. 13 Ahau 18 Kankin 
9.10.15.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Mac! 
joa 5.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Zac 
g.11.10.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Chen 

"GI 2iTS0.0 2 Ahau 13 Zip 

Dig.1345.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Pop 

I -.053.18.0,0 . 14*Ahau 18 Pax 
9.14. 5.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Kankin 

F [9:14.10.0. 5 Ahau 3 Mac? 
9.14.15.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Zac? 

It is very doubtful whether any of the three hotuns in Group A, with the 
possible exception of 9.10.10.0.0, were ever marked by the erection either of 
stele or altars. At the conclusion of this katun in 9.11.0.0.0 no less than 7 
stele were set up, and the energy going into the making of these, as well as 
into the construction of other buildings then in course of erection, may 
explain the observed hiatus at this point in the sequence of the monuments. 

Why the two hotuns in the next group, B, and particularly the second, 
g.11.10.0.0, should not have been marked is unknown, though here again the 
next hotun, 9.11.15.0.0, was signalized by the erection of two monuments, 
a stela and an altar. 

After 9.12.5.0.0 (Stela I) there are no first or third hotuns marked in the 


Middle Period, which probably satisfactorily accounts for the breaks in the 





1 This date is recorded as the Initial Series on Stele 12 and 2, it will be remembered, but probably not as 
their contemporaneous dates. 

2 This date occurs as a period-ending on Stela F, a monument of the Great Period, but not as its contempo- 
raneous date. 

3 This date occurs as a period-ending on Stela 4, a monument of the Great Period, and also as a period-ending 
on the Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26 (Date 22), but in neither case is it the contemporaneous date of these 
monuments. 


216 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


sequence in Groups C, D, E, and F above. After 9.12.5.0.0, on the other 
hand, all the lahuntun and katun-endings except the last, 9.14.10.0.0, are 
marked by corresponding monuments. 

It is not at all unlikely, in view of the foregoing, that beginning with the 
construction of the Great Plaza, which began after 9.12.5.0.0 and before 
9.13.10.0.0, an undertaking which with the work on the Acropolis then going 
forward must have absorbed the energies of well-nigh the entire masonic craft of 
the community, the practice of erecting monuments to mark the ends of first 
and third hotuns may have been discontinued as too exhaustive a drain on the 
resources of the tribe in connection with the larger work then in progress; and 
thereafter monuments may have been erected only on the lahuntun and katun- 
endings. If such were the case, there is only one period-marker missing after 
9.12.5.0.0, namely, 9.14.10.0.0; and possibly for the whole Middle Period not 
more than three—9g.10.10.0.0, 9.11.10.0.0, and 9.14.10.0.0. 

Such speculations as these, while incapable of definite proof, are yet inter- 
esting as possibly indicating why certain hotuns passed unmarked at Copan; 
and the writer feels much more inclined to accept this explanation of the 
facts observed, almost in its entirety, rather than to accept the only other 
alternative possible, namely, that the stele marking these 11 missing hotuns 
have been utterly destroyed or else still lie buried somewhere in the valley. 

Turning next to the consideration of the altars of the Middle Period, 
enough has been said already to show that in some cases at least their func- 
tions are scarcely to be distinguished from those of the stele. Indeed, in 
four cases they seem to have served as hotun-markers, just like stele. 

Of the twelve altars of the period, six are circular and drum-shaped;} 
four are rectangular,’ and two are of complex form.* The drum-shaped 
altars enjoyed their greatest vogue in the Middle Period—indeed, with the 
exception of a small one, Altar W, they do not occur at all in the Great 
Period.t| The highest example of the type is the altar of Stela I, which, in 
addition to the bands running over the top, has knots and bands on the 
periphery, both above and below the inscription. The rectangular altars, 
on the other hand, carry over into the Great Period. 

As seven of these twelve altars have been correlated with the stele for 
which they were severally designed, they may be dismissed from further 
consideration. It will be necessary, however, to examine the remaining five, 
all of which record Initial Series, in somewhat greater detail. These are: 


The West Altar of Stela 5 
The Altar of Stela 1 

Altar K 

Altar H’ 

Altar I’ 


1 The altars of Stele 19, 13, 1, and I, and the East and West Altars of Stela 5. 

2 The altar of Stela 6 and Altars K, H’, and I’. 

3 The altars of Stele J and 3. 

4 Only one altar of this type has no inscription, namely, Altar 14. It is not associated with any other monu- 
ment, and its date is therefore uncertain. (See Spinden, 1913, p. 161 and figure 214.) It stands by the river bank 
and is ornamented with bands and other decorative elements, but has no glyphs on it. It almost certainly may be 
referred to the Middle Period on stylistic grounds. As already pointed out, the plain drum-shaped stones found 
in connection with Stel 12 and 23 are probably their foundation-stones and not altars. 








INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 217 


In the cases of the first two, it has already been shown that they were 
probably not originally associated with the stele with which they are now 
found; and the remaining three are not now associated with any stele. 

We have seen that of the stele of the Middle Period, only two, Nos. 
10 and 5, have no altars which may be correlated with them. Could any of 
the above five altars, therefore, originally have been associated with either 
of these stele? The writer thinks not. It has been shown that the first two 
commemorated the katun-ending 9.12.0.0.0 and the last two the katun- 
ending 9.13.0.0.0, neither of which is recorded either on Stela 10 or Stela s. 
Moreover, in the case of Stela 10, there are strong grounds for believing that 
its associated altar must have presented the Secondary Series 5.0, which 
would just bring its Initial Series terminal date forward to the nearest hotun- 
ending. And in the case of Stela 5 there were probably present on the stela 
itself calculations indicating the hotun-ending it was erected to commem- 
orate, 9.13.15.0.0 OF 9.14.0.0.0. 

The only altar left, Altar K, could hardly have belonged to either of these 
stele, since it is 35 years later than Stela 10 and 25 years earlier than Stela s. 

In view of the foregoing, it seems improbable that any of the above 
altars could have been associated with either Stela to or Stela 5, and therefore 
the altars of these two stele are now missing. 

At the conclusion of the Middle Period the times were ripe for a brilliant 
cultural florescence, a tremendous outburst of art and architecture. All the 
necessary factors for such were present in their highest degree. Long 
familiarity with stone-carving had developed a technique which was soon to 
halt at nothing—not even sculpture in the round.’ Inscriptions of a length 
and beauty, hitherto undreamed, were soon to be executed if not already 
under way.” Temples surpassing in grandeur and magnificance their noblest 
achievements in the past were soon to be erected.* In short, the tribe 
whose fortunes we are following had at last come into the full enjoyment of 
its artistic and intellectual inheritance. It was at the threshold of its 


Golden Age. 


1Stela B and the human figures on the Hieroglyphic Stairway. 
2 The Hieroglyphic Stairway on the western side of Mound 26. 
3 Temples 11, 22, and 26. 





~= <7 ea 


Caachi onli 2 aa le eat 










oy » 7 7 i 4 
, 9” iy i 
, ; U ® » $ 
y ‘ . . 
Sai = Pa thes ee v 27 lien wih ay Se, n 
er. ; 
| faa ay: Rit Aa a ee 
+ 7 


ek 
ihe alee 
‘ r /¥ 


OS ESC TM AS DR ceoe eg Faia a 


x .e a : ise ~ ie > 79 Y 1g 
‘ io). | ae ae / 4 
x es A oe a Le : ; ‘ 
LE TAT OP (C0 AN CES 
| ; ee 


4 r 0 PEO Ri eee eas 
é ints 


%y 


| a | paddy VE | . 0g als net Yentbe Ci Sahe bv ieae al 
} ‘ } ' | 


; - P ; 
A PP - rs ye 4? 
— 4 - ; i J [ 
: . a4 
+ j e © 1% - 
< r 1 ‘ 
* * 2 . 7 
' 
a - ; f 
: , » f* ® re Se 
7 ’ -~ a ; 
| Ai 
> 5 
1” > 
+ . 4 ' ’ ; 
" 
a ’ 
* . 4 y A 
‘ L al 
p ~*~. 
a rr : ‘ r/ 62 6 
y ‘ 
- Uj ‘ . \ 
Bis ase : 
a” - . ( At by 
-~ : 7 
i ‘ 
i 
4 - 
. 7 fs 
: r + 
" 4 ee Ay i 
> 
~ vm . bs "> 
+ i : 
. - * ? } 
n J +? 
5 * Le 
, = ia 
j = 
Y, 3 . a 
* 2 * 7 : 
‘ \ | =e - é 
> ¥ t 
el ‘ g 
~ ¥ 
+ ' - _~ — ing tsa OF 
'. ; “4 
. es Sab 
hi 2 * P M 
7, i a" ¢ 
7 - 7 ; ' 
; ? ? a 4 
x , ' iN 5 t 
; / : Re vP a a. y 
, z \k 
; aioe . + petty e ivy { re 
¢ ro e. 
? : 
¥ Y 
4 ; - 
» ‘= ow Pd as i 
- oy i *. 
ae 9 ’ 4 
“2 ¥ 
: one 4 - WS 4 Jem 
% _ 
a 
t: 
i F = p 
~ inf t) 
Le i r 
- ; < 4 7 
‘ a 4 
ere c CDG Ange 
: ; rs : a 
ue (ham 
> 
+) ADSI) Gagan rvel 
« : 5 \ 
; a . c 
' 4 
“a 
y) U ¥ a opt 
- : ® Gs. % ® eo ¥ 
é & 
eo 
® : 
* " 
t - oa » 
) . - 
; 2 - - 
i , 
f » y 7 7 
~ et : 
5 6 e 
. : - sz 
7 Pe 7 
; ‘ 
are yt . 
ge 7 
a -_ ~“e 
*~ oie leas 
) . 4 


CHAPTER IV. 
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 


By the beginning of the Great Period, 9.15.0.0.0, Copan was entering 
upon the closing century of its occupation. The terraces surrounding the 
Great Plaza had been completed, and the center of building activity was very 
soon to shift some 200 meters farther south, where the Hieroglyphic Stair- 
way of Mound 26 already under construction and the magnificent temples 
surrounding the Eastern and Western Courts of the Acropolis were soon to 
be completed. 

The culture of this tribe or people was at its zenith. Wealth of a con- 
crete kind was doubtless at the disposal of the ruling caste, for only vast 
accumulations of stored-up capital, in the form of reserves of food, clothing, 
and implements, as well as a large and skilled artisan class, both the outcome 
of long-continued and wisely directed prosperity, could have made possible 
such truly remarkable achievements in architecture and sculpture. 

It is necessary, moreover, to assume that living conditions were easy, 
since it was possible to divert so much activity from the food-quest to purely 
esthetic pursuits. No warlike subjects, it should be remembered, are por- 
trayed on the stele and altars at Copan, and peace must have prevailed 
most, if not all, of the time. 

The surplus energy of a great people under the efficient direction of a 
highly organized ruling caste, probably priestly, was being applied to the 
embellishment of their capital. Industry was the order of the day, archi- 
tectural and artistic supremacy the goal. Thus passed the closing century 
of the city’s occupation; and then came the end. Some time toward the 
close of Cycle 9 or early in Cycle 10, without any apparent cause, at least 
one of sufficient importance to be reflected in the sculpture and architec- 
ture of the city, the monuments at Copan suddenly stop. Chronology and 
art, the latter without any intermediate stages of decline or decadence, all 
at once cease to be, and the city’s history becomes a blank. 

That some comparatively slow catastrophe, operating for at least a cen- 
tury, and culminating early in Cycle 10, must have overtaken the southern 
Maya becomes increasingly evident. Everywhere the story is the same— 
a sudden and final cessation of all dated monuments in the individual cities 
not later than 10.2.0.0.0, unaccompanied by any of the usual signs of social 
and political disintegration, but a gradual cessation over the Old Empire 
region as a whole.! 








1 See Chapter V, 442-462, for the discussion of this question, and also Morley, 19134, p. 65; 1915, pp. 3, 45 
and 19174, pp. 144, 145. 
219 


220 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


It is perhaps too early to offer a conjecture as to the cause of this all- 
engulfing social catastrophe. A number of hypotheses have been advanced 
which are reviewed in Chapter V. For the present it is sufficient to note 
that just before the close of Cycle 9, about 9.18.10.0.0, architectural and 
sculptural activity ceased at Copan, and shortly afterward the city was 
probably abandoned, the inhabitants migrating elsewhere. 

The monuments of the Great Period, as would naturally be expected, 
are much more numerous than those from either the Early or Middle Period, 
or indeed from both combined; more than half of the texts at Copan—45 
out of the 89 examined in this monograph—dating from the closing century 
of the city’s occupation, 9.15.0.0.0 to 10.0.0.0.0. These 45, moreover, 
include only such monuments as have inscriptions, but if all the uninscribed 
sculptures of the Great Period were included in the above total, this pre- 
ponderance would be greatly increased. 

In the Early and Middle Periods we have seen that the hieroglyphic 
inscriptions were presented exclusively upon stele and altars. In the Great 
Period, however, in addition to the monuments we will find texts inscribed 
upon architectural members as well, such as stairways, cornices, wall-panels, 
and door-jambs, for example. 

Steps and even long stairways were favorite media for glyphic treatment 
here and elsewhere.' The Hieroglyphic Stairway on the western slope of 
Mound 26 (see plate 6), containing upwards of go steps and about 2,500 
glyphs, is by far the longest text in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum. 
Other media which present inscriptions are door-jambs, door-lintels, piers, 
columns, wall-tablets, and cornices. Of these, however, only inscribed door- 
jambs and possibly a cornice (Fragment Z’) have been found at Copan.? 

The first sculptures of the Great Period, Stele A, B, and D, are found in 
the Great Plaza. This is the largest court in the city, and was probably 
completed some time shortly before 9.15.0.0.0. At least, the earliest monu- 
ments in situ in the Great Plaza, except Stela I, date from that hotun. 
During the 20 or 25 years after Stela 5 was erected at Group 8 (see plate 3), 
the terraces surrounding the Great Plaza were probably completed, and 
shortly before 9.15.0.0.0 the sculptors and stone-masons of the city were 
again at liberty to devote themselves to the making of stele and altars. 
Their first efforts in this direction were probably Stele A and B and their 
respective altars, with which monuments the Great Period begins. 





1 Hieroglyphic steps have also been found at Quirigua, Structure 1 (Morley, 1913, pp. 352, 353, and drawing, 
p. 356, and Hewett, 1912, p. 165); Seibal, Mound of Stela 5, 6, and 7 (Maler, 1908, p. 20); Naranjo, Structure 16 
(Maler, 19084, pp. 91-93); Yaxchilan, Structure 5 (Maler, 1903, p. 122), and. Palenque, Palace Group, House C 
(Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1v of text p. 16). 

2 Inscribed wooden lintels have been found at Tikal and inscribed stone lintels at Naranjo, Yaxchilan, Piedras 
Negras, El Chicozapote, and El Cayo. Hieroglyphic piers, columns, and wall-tablets have been found at Palenque 
and Holactun, and the writer himself excavated an inscribed cornice at Quirigua. (See plate 1.) The record 
of inscriptions upon architectural members greatly enriched the effect of Maya facades, and in some cases is directly 
responsible for their striking appearance. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 221 
STELA A. 
Provenance: In the Great Plaza just north of Mound 4, Main 
Structure. (See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax.! 


Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 25, 27-29. 
(b) drawing: Spinden, 1913, plate 20, 7 (part only). 
Maudslay, ibid, plates 26, 30. 
Morley, 1915, plate 7, bd. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, 3 plates after p. 158. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. IoI, 126, 127, 182, 183, and tables 
29 and 31. 
Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 598. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 129. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 35. 
Gordon, 1902, p. 171. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. I of text, pp. 36-39. 
Morley, 1915, pp. 169, 170. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 754, 755. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 158, 159, 162, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 158. 
Thomas, 1900, pp. 776, 801. 


Stela A stands in situ in the Great Plaza at the northern base of Mound 
4, facing east (see plate 6), that is, with a side instead of its back’ next the 
mound, in which position it would appear not to have been correlated with 
Mound 4.2. The front is sculptured with a human figure of heroic propor- 
tions and gorgeous clothing. The back and sides are covered with glyphs, 
on the basis of which arrangement of the design it may be assigned to 
Class 4. It is 3.5 meters high, 91 cm. wide, and something less in thickness. 
Stephens gives it the letter L in his map.’ 

The Initial Series is presented on the north side, and records the date 
g.14.19.8.0 12 Ahau 18 Cumhu very clearly, as follows: 


Al Initial Series introducing glyph 
A2a 9 cycles 

A2b =: 14 katuns 

A3a_—s«iTg tuns 


A3b 8 uinals 
A4a o kins 
A4b =: 12 Ahau 


Agb ~=18 Cumhu 


_ Except for the Supplementary Series, there are no other known glyphs 
on the north side. 

The second glyph on the back or west side, B2a, records the Secondary 
Series 3.0; and following this in c2 is the date 4 Ahau 18 Muan. All efforts 
to reach the latter by counting 3.0 forward from the Initial Series terminal 
date are unavailing; but if this number is counted backward from the 
Initial Series terminal date, the date reached will be found to be 4 Ahau 18 
Muan, as recorded. 








1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 

2 Four of the stele in the center of the Great Plaza are arranged in two lines facing each other, Stele A and 
B being directly opposite Stele H and F respectively, the two former facing east, the two latter, west. (See plate 6.) 

3 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, map facing p. 133, and p. 158. 


222 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


9.14.19.8.0 12 Ahau 18 Cumhu 
3.0 backward 
g.14.19.5.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan 

The latter date, 9.14.19.5.0, is just 1 tonalamatl (13 uinals) before the 
closing date on this monument, and is, moreover, a katun anniversary of 
another date here at Copan, namely, the second on Stela I, which is exactly 
3 katuns earlier: 

9.11.19.5.0 10 Ahau 13 Ceh 
3. 0.0.0 
9.14.19.5.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan 

The record of two dates which are exactly 1 tonalamatl before the ends 
of katuns in the Long Count might indicate the recurrence of some festival 
at such times. Perhaps like the last 5 days of the year in northern Yucatan, 
the closing tonalamatl of each katun was set aside for a particular group of 
ceremonies.! If this were true, the dates 9.11.19.5.0 10 Ahau 13 Ceh on 
Stela I, and 9.14.19.5.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan here would mark the beginnings 
of such festivals. At least, the recurrence of such an unusual date as this 
arrests the attention and may well have had some such corresponding sig- 
nificance, 

The count on Stela A is continued in B11), where a Secondary Series 
of 10.0 is followed by the date 4 Ahau 13 Yax in c11b,B12a. All efforts, 
however, to reach this by counting 10.0 either forward or backward from the 
preceding date 4 Ahau 18 Muan will prove unavailing, but if 10.0 1s counted 
forward from the Initial Series ‘terminal date 12 Ahau 18 Cumhu, the date 
reached will be found to be 4 Ahau 13 Yax, as recorded: 


9.14.19. 8.0 12 Ahau 18 Cumhu 
10.0 
Oy Sas ene) 4 Ahau 13 Yax 


Finally, the record of “End of Katun 15” in B12), c12a proves that the 
4 Ahau 13 Yax in c11b, Bl2a is in fact 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 \Yax, anaeene 
above calculations are therefore correct. 

There follows in c12b the day 12 Ahau and in B13a, 13?, the doubtful 
glyph, probably being a month-sign. ‘There seems to be no reason, however, 
for the record of such a Calendar Round date here. 

The remaining side (south) has no glyphs of a decipherable nature 
except p12b, which is the lahuntun ending-sign already referred to. (See 
pp. 61, 88, 116, 183, 188, 195, 200, and Morley, 19170, p. 197.) 











1 Says Landa in describing these ceremonies at the end of the year: 

“Tt has been said in the preceding chapters that the Indians [of Yucatan] commenced their years from these 
days without name [the last five days of their year July 11-15 inclusive, Old Style, July 21-25 New Style], pre- 
paring for them with vigils in order to celebrate the feast of their new year. And besides the preparations which 
they make for the feast of the demon Uayebab, for which they go out of their houses, the rest of the preparations 
were to go out of their houses very little in these five days, except to offer the gifts and objects of the general feast 
to their devils and to the others in their temples. These things which are thus offered, they never take back for 
their own uses, nor anything which may have been offered to the demon, for whom they buy incense to burn. 
During these days they do not comb or wash themselves, the men do not remove the vermin from their bodies, and 
the women do no menial or heavy work, because they fear some evil would result if they did it.” (Landa, 1881, 
pp- 96, 97.) 


MORLEY PLATE 24 





a. Glyphs in the north gallery of Structure 18. 









ere 
a 


Pet 
» ¥ " 


Oe. 





Pa tia 
oot 


d. Altar G!. 


wary 


Pe See! 42 





f. Altar QO! 








cub 
OF WL 


a 


“ERSITY 








INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 223 


Attention should be called to the peculiar form of the last glyph of the 
Supplementary Series in this text at asa: @=ss _This sign has the coefficient 
g, one of the only two possible (9 or 10), and stands in the regular 
position, 7. ¢., immediately preceding the month-sign. ‘The main part 
of the glyph, however, is entirely different from the usual forms. (See 
Morley, 1916, plates 1-10, Glyph A.) So far as the writer knows, this 
variant occurs as the last glyph of the Supplementary Series in but two 
other places, on Stela N, also here at Copan, and on Slab 6 of the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway at Naranjo. On Stela N the coefficient is 10 instead of 9.1. This same 
variant but with another superfix appears again on Stela A at cob. The reason 
for its use in these three texts and in no other is unknown, but that it is the 
same as the usual form seems probable from the fact that: 

(1) This variant in all three cases is the last glyph of the Supplementary 
Series, and in two immediately precedes the month-sign; and 

(2) In all three cases it has the coefficient 9 or 10, the only ones possible 
with the last glyph of the Supplementary Series. 

A summary of the chronological parts of this text follows: 







North side, ar-a4b, agb-~—sg.14.19. 8.0 12 Ahau 18 Cumhu 


West side, B2a 3.0 backward 
C2 9.14.19. 5.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan 
Brib 10.0 from Initial Series 
c11b, Bi2a 9.15. 0.10.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax 
B12b, C12a End of Katun 15 
C12b, B13 12 Ahau 13? 


The possible significance of the second date above has already been 
explained. The next to last date, 9.15.0.0.0, is the katun-ending this monu- 
ment was erected to commemorate. 

Stela A is the most elaborate monument yet encountered. The carving 
of the glyphs is well-rounded, giving a finish and softness of outline to the 
glyph-blocks not encountered in any of the earlier sculptures. There are 
13 +26+13 =52 glyph-blocks in the entire text. 

According to Spinden, there are a few traces of a monolithic altar of 
undetermined character in front of this monument.’ 


STELA B. 5 hee 
Provenance: About the middle of the Great Plaza. Main Structtire.” *, 
(See plate 6.) ae 
Date: G.15-0,0,0 m4 Aba 1s) vax 


Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, a. 
(b) drawing: Arnold and Frost, 1909, plate opposite p. 284. 
Maudslay, zbid, plates 34, 37. 
Morley, 1915, plate 7, a. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, 3 plates after p. 156. 
References: Arnold and Frost, 1909, p. 284. 
Bowditch, 1910, pp. 101, 183, and table 29. 





1 See Morley, 1916, plate 10, Nos. 77 and 80, Glyph A, and p. 370. 
2 See Spinden, 1913, table 1. 
3 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VITI. 


224 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


STELA B—continued. 


References—cont’d: Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 598. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 130. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 35. 
Gordon, 1902, p. 167. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. I of text, pp. 42, 43. 
Morley, 1915, pp. 167-169. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. I, pp. 751, 752. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 157-159, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 156. 
Thomas, 1900, pp. 776, 801. 

Stela B stands near the center of the Great Plaza facing east. It is 3.58 
meters high and more than a meter wide. The front is sculptured with a 
human figure of heroic size, whose somewhat Mongoloid cast of counte- 
nance has given rise to a flood of ill-considered speculations regarding the 
possible Asiatic origin of the Maya civilization. One of the more recent sup- 
porters of this extravagant hypothesis, long since relegated to the rubbish- 
pile of scientific discards, is Arnold, who writes concerning this monument 
as follows: 

“Here as pointed out on page 268 are carvings so strikingly Oriental that one 
can not doubt their origin. The faces of the figures on the stelz are the faces one 
can see today in Cambodia and Siam. The dress, the ornamentation, the turban- 
shaped head-dress (found on no other carvings but these) are all purely ancient 
Indo-Chinese.”” 


Even as sober and restrained a writer as Stephens, who calls this monu- 
ment N in his map, was led astray by the apparent resemblance of certain 
decorative elements on this monument to elephant trunks: ‘‘The two 
elements at the top appear like the trunks of an elephant, an animal unknown 
in that country.” 

More recently Elliot Smith has revived this highly improbable identi- 
fication, finding detailed anatomical similarities between this decorative 
element on Stela B and the trunk of an elephant. He has been ably answered, 
however, by Tozzer, Spinden, and Means.’ 

It is hardly necessary to point out that any attempt which seeks to 
establish direct cultural connection between the Maya and any old-world 
civilization, either Egyptian or Mongolian, is quite at variance with the 
results of modern research in this field. And yet the superficial similarities 
of the Maya to these civilizations are such as to win for this now-exploded 
hypothesis new adherents from time to time. 











1 Arnold, 1909, p. 284. 

2 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 156. Spinden was the first to point out the true nature of this element, which is 
the beak ot the blue macaw somewhat exaggerated in length. 

3 This controversy arose through the publication by Elliot Smith in Nature for November 25, 1915 (Smith, 
1915-1916, pp. 340, 341), of an article entitled “ Pre-Columbian Representations of the Elephant in America,” and 
additions in Nature for December 16, 1915 (ibid., p. 425). Tozzer (1916, p. 592), Spinden (1916, pp. 592, 593), 
and Means (1916, pp. 533, 534) hastened to refute this extraordinary hypothesis, in which the writer believes they 
were successful; Spinden (op. cit.) shows clearly that the element in question is the beak of the blue macaw. Other 
Elliot Smith contributions to the discussions are, 1915-1916, pp. 593-595, and 1916-1417, pp. 190-195, 241-246. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 225 


Returning to the description of Stela B, the back presents a huge gro- 
tesque face, the eyes and mouth of which each contain a single glyph-block, 
making three in all. The center of the forehead is occupied by a human 
figure (see figure 36) seated cross-legged, which from this time on seems to 
have been a favorite subject of the Copan sculptors. ‘Theoneon Stela B is 
probably the earliest example of the type yet found.’ 

Each of the narrow sides of this stela con- 
tains a single line of glyph-blocks, 14 on the 
north side and 13 on the south side, which, with 
the 3 on the back, make a total of 14+13 +3 =30 
for the entire text. 

This arrangement of the design is new. It 
is most like Class 4, 7. ¢., a human figure on the 
front and glyphs on the back and two sides, except 
that in the case of Stela B the back has a large 
grotesque face with only three glyph-blocks—one 
in each eye and one in the mouth—in place of the 
usual two columns of glyph-blocks. Stela Bis, in — Fic. 36.—Seated human figure on 

co. back of Stela B. 
fact, a transitional type between Classes 4 and 5, 
more closely resembling the former, however, than the latter, to which, 
therefore, it has been assigned here. 

The inscription on the north side opens with an Initial Series introducing 
glyph at ai and this is followed by the Initial Series 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 
Yax in A2-A8: 





Art ___ Initial Series introducing glyph 


A2 9 cycles 
A3. ~=« 5 katuns 
A4 Oo tuns 
As © uinals 
A6 o kins 
AT 4 Ahau 
ASUEE 3. Vax 


This reading is perfectly clear and offers no difficulties. The south side 
has only two glyphs of known meaning: Bs, Bo, “The End of Katun 15.” 
Several others, however, are of familiar form as B3a, B7, B8, B12, and B13. 
It should be noted that there is no Supplementary Series on Stela B, the 
month of the Initial Series terminal date immediately following the day. 
A summary of the text follows: 
North side, Ar Os. c.00- 4 Anais Yax 
South side, Bs, B6 End of Katun 15 
It is evident from the foregoing that Stele A and B both record the same 
hotun-ending. Stylistically considered, however, Stela B is a little later 


than Stela A. 
1 Other sculptures showing this figure are: Altars Q, IT, S, and L, the step in Temple 11, and two sculptures 


found on the terrace east of the Great Plaza. The last are now in the Museum of the Normal School at Teguci- 
galpa. Of a closely related type may be mentioned the figures on Altars L, Q, and R at Quirigua. 





226 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Spinden, in describing the latter, states: 


“In style the principal figure like Stele Aand D . . . . grotesque face occupies 
entire back of stela. Head-dress of principal figure a turban... . feet turned 
at slightly less than 180°, hence the sculpture later than Stela A.” 


Indeed, some of the carving on Stela B amounts to sculpture in the 
round, the macaw-beaks mentioned above standing quite free from the body 
of the monument. | 

Stele A and B were doubtless erected at the same time, although it is 
quite possible, in fact likely, that the latter, because of its technical superior- 
ity, was carved after the former. 

Catherwood’s drawing of the text on the north side of this monument, 
made in 1839, is so accurate that it is possible to read the date from it.” 
When it is taken into consideration that the Maya hieroglyphic writing was a 
sealed book at the time he visited Copan, and that he knew nothing about 
the subject-matter of the glyphs he drew, such accuracy is remarkable. It is 
also possible to read his drawing of the Initial Series on Stela D.’ 


ALTAR S. 


Provenance: On the summit of the pyramid (Mound 29, Maudslay’s 
numeration) at the southeast corner of the village 
plaza (Group 9). (See plate 3 and figure 22, /.) 

Date: 9.15.0.0.0 4:Ahaui3/Yaxs 

Text, (a) photograph: plate 24, D. 

(b) drawing: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 94. 
Morley, 1915, figure 81. 

References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 95-97, 128, 129, 179, and table 29. 

Goodman, 1897, p. 134. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 60. 
Morley, 1915, pp. 231-233. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 753, 754. 
Spinden, 1913, table 1. 
Thomas, 1900, pp. 788, 802. 


Altar S was found by Maudslay on the summit of the pyramid at the 
southeast corner of the plaza of the modern village (Group 9). (See figure 
22,/.) The Peabody Museum photographs also show that this was its original 
position. Subsequently it was removed to the cabildo on the west side of the 
plaza, and it is now in the museum there. It is a rectangular block of stone 
about 1 meter long, 76 cm. wide, and 38 cm. high. The top is sculptured with a 
seated human figure holding some object in its extended right hand, the four 
sides being covered with glyphs, three glyph-blocks on each of the long sides 
and two on each of the short sides, a total of 10 for the entire text. 

The Initial Series commences on one of the long sides and is concluded 
on the adjacent side to the right. (See plate 24, b.) The date recorded is very 
clearly 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax, as shown at top of next page. 








1 See Spinden, 1913, table r. 

2 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, last plate between pp. 156 and 157. 

3 [bid., plate facing p. 153. 

4 For other monuments 1ecording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 


i) 
Ww 
a I 


A Initial Series introducing glyph 


B 9 cycles 
ca 15 katuns 
cb o tuns 
Da Oo uinals 
bb o kins 
Ea 4 Ahau 
ED) ,.39h) ax 


Maudslay’s drawing of the katun coefficient (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 94, b, 
cau. h.) incorrectly shows 13. The original, however, is perfectly clear, and 
shows that it is composed of three bars, 7. ¢., 15. (See plate 24,0.) 

Passing around to the next side, there is found at Ga, 5 katuns, and at 
H the date 7 Ahau 18 Zip. If 5 katuns are counted forward from 9.15.0.0.0 4 
Ahau 13 Yax, the date reached will be 10.0.0.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Zip; and the 
“End of Cycle 10”’ is in fact recorded at 1a, the first glyph on the remaining 
side. The last three glyphs are unknown, except that ja |. h. may be the 
sign for the planet Venus. A summary of this short text is given below: 

A-E -9.15:0.0.0. ~ 4 Ahau 13 Yax 
H 10. 0.0.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Zip 
1a _— End of Cycle to 

We have here two dates nearly 100 years apart, and the important ques- 
tion at once arises, which indicates the time this altar was made? Which 
of the two was its contemporaneous date? 

In general, when two or more dates are found on the same monument, 
the latest corresponds with the date of erection, that is, the latest is the 
“contemporaneous date.’ When there is only one hotun-ending on a 
monument, it is invariably the date upon which the monument was erected 
or dedicated. The writer knows of no exceptions to this rule. Many 
monuments of this latter kind, however, begin with other dates which are 
earlier than the hotun-endings they commemorate. ‘Take, for example, 
Stela 36, at Piedras Negras, the Initial Series of which is 9.10.6.5.9 8 Muluc 
2 Yaxkin, while its final date is 9.11.15.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Mol, a hotun-ending 
28 years later. Another case in point is that of Stela E at Quirigua, the 
Initial Series on the west side of which is 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab, 
while its final date is 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, a hotun-ending 46 years 
later. 

In texts of this character, the final date, if a hotun-ending, is invariably 
the contemporaneous date of the monument. The case is somewhat differ- 
ent, however, when more than one hotun-ending is recorded upon the same 
monument, as here, and it is necessary to examine this condition further. 

Other monuments of this kind, besides Altar S, are: Stele J and 8 here 
at Copan, Zoémorph G at Quirigua, and Altar 1 and Stele 4 and 7 at Piedras 
Negras. The full discussion of these monuments would carry us too far 
afield to attempt here, but the conclusion to which they point may be 
briefly stated as follows: The earlier rather than the /ater hotun-ending in 
such cases is invariably the contemporaneous date, and the /ater one was 


228 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


usually “future time’’ when it was recorded. In a sense, the closing dates 
on these seven monuments are prophetic, that is, they probably represent 
priestly calculations, which dealt with the future, even at the time they 
were recorded. 

It is to be noted further that the later hotun-endings in these cases are 
invariably of unusual importance. For example, the closing dates on Altar 
S and Stele 8 and J at Copan, Zodmorph G at Quirigua, and Altar 1 at 
Piedras Negras all record “The End of Cycle 10.” We shall see later that 
katun-endings were commemorated more elaborately than other hotun- 
endings; and the end of Cycle 9, 7. ¢., 10.0.0.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Zip, the period 
which had witnessed the first great development and cultural florescence of the 
Maya, must have been a date of unusual importance to which all were looking 
forward, especially the priestly astronomers in whose hands lay the reckoning 
of time. For this reason it is not surprising that the “End of Cycle 10” was 
recorded more than once before it had actually come to pass.} 

A particularly appropriate time for doing this was in 9.15.0.0.0, the 
date of the Initial Series of Altar S, at which moment the current cycle 
(Cycle 9) was then exactly three-quarters over, and the beginning of Cycle 
10 just a quarter of a cycle off. 

The Initial Series of Stele 4 and 7 at Piedras Negras record lahuntun- 
endings, Stela 4 having the date 9.13.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu and Stela 7 
the date 9.14.10.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Mac. In both these cases, however, 10 addi- 
tional tuns are recorded after the Initial Series terminal dates, and these 
are followed by the dates which end the next katuns, 7. ¢., 6 Ahau 13 Muan 
End of Katun 14 in the first case, and 4 Ahau 13 Yax End of Katun 15 in 
the second case. 

If the final date is to be regarded as the contemporaneous date of each 
stela, there will then be two monuments at Piedras Negras (Stele 4 and 3) 
commemorating the katun-ending 9.14.0.0.0, and two (Stele 7 and 11) 
commemorating the katun-ending 9.15.0.0.0, but none commemorating the 
lahuntun-endings 9.13.10.0.0 and 9.14.10.0.0, the Initial Series dates of these 
two stele. The improbability of this is apparent at a glance, and it seems 
perfectly safe to assume that the earlier hotun-ending on each stela was the 
contemporaneous one and that the final one was simply a calculation of the 
priests to show how far off the nearest katun-ending was at that time. The 
final dates on all these monuments are doubtless prophetic, in that they 
still lay in the lap of the gods when they were recorded. 

In the case of Altar S, the particular monument which provoked the 
above digression, stylistic evidence, moreover, is not lacking to support 
the conclusions reached on chronologic grounds. Spinden places this altar 
in the same group with Stela B, the date of which, as we have already seen, 
is also 9.15.0.0.0. | 





1 Cycle 10 is also recorded as a Period Ending date on Stela 11 at Seibal, although the contemporaneous date 
of that monument is one katun later, 7. ¢., 10.1.0.0.0. (See Maler, 1908, plate 9, glyphs £2, F2a.) 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 229 


“Altar S bears same date as Stela B—only glyphs—carving of glyphs shows 
much the same progress as carving of human figure—block-like quality becomes 
less evident—sharp edges rounded, and modelling apparent.’”! 


In view of all the evidence presented, it seems highly probable that 
Altar S was erected not at the later hotun-ending recorded upon it, but at 
the earlier one, that is at 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax instead of 10.0.0.0.0 
7 Ahau 18 Zip,’ and, indeed, that originally it may have been associated 
with Stela A or B at the Main Structure. 

It will be seen from the summary of this inscription on page 227 that 
out of a total of 18 glyphs* the meanings of 11 are completely known (x, 
ca, cb, Da, Db, Ea, Eb, Ga, Ha, HD, and Ia) and the function of one other, 7. ¢., 
the Initial Series introducing glyph (a), 1s clearly understood. This leaves 
only six, or 33.3 per cent, of the text undeciphered. Three of the undeter- 
mined glyphs (Fra, cb, and jb) have the familiar ending superfix GV), also 
seen above ta, the glyph recording “End of Cycle ro.” It seems probable 
from these glyphs, therefore, that other and still unknown Maya time-periods 
also came to an end on one or other of the two dates recorded on this altar. 

The first glyph showing this ending-sign superfix, Fa, follows 
immediately after the Initial Series terminal date; and it is not at GX all un- 
likely that some unknown time-period, whose sign is expressed & by Fa, 
came to an end on the date 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax. ‘The prefix of Fa is 
also another ending-sign and the element between the superfixial ending- 
sign and the main glyph is a familiar form for o. The record of two ending 
signs_and o in the same glyph strongly suggests that such a sign designates 
the end of some time-period. 

The next glyph with this ending-sign superfix is Gb 
between the “5 katuns”’ and the date “7 Ahau 18 Zip”. This may in- 
dicate that some time-period expressed by cd is contained an even 
number of times in five katuns; that is, it came to an end in this period. Gb 


standing 








is apparently the day-sign Imix with the day-sign Ahau ap- 
pearing in place of its central element. These two days are 
the first and last of all Maya @W© time-periods, Ahau being the 


closing day and Imix the starting day of all known periods greater than the 
kin. If 7 Ahau 18 Zip closed Cycle 10, as we have seen, then 8 Imix 19 Zip 
began the following cycle. cb may therefore be a general glyph indicating 
the end of one time period and the beginning of another. 

The last ending-sign appears at Jb, @) , where it is attached to a com- 


posite glyph, the main element of which ®) also appears in the next “2 
ES (Glyph B). Thesubfixis Ug 
1 See Spinden, 1913, table 1. 


to last sign of the Supplementary Series 

2 This conclusion applies to the other six monuments of this group, with the possible exception of Altar 1 at 
Piedras Negras, which opens with a cycle-ending, more than 5,000 years before the beginning of Cycle 9, that is 
before the beginning of the historic period, and proceeds to the End of Cycle 10; or from the very remote past, 
through the present, into the nearer future. 

3 The first two glyph-blocks have only one glyph each—the Initial Series introducing glyph and the cycle-sign 
and coefficient; but all the others have two glyphs each, which make a total of 18 instead of 20 for the entire text 











230 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


also frequently seen in month-signs, though in such cases it does not appear 
to alter the value either of the month-sign or its coefficient. 

It seems not improbable from the foregoing that several time-periods 
may have come to an end on one or other of these two dates and that Altar S 
was made to record this fact. 

That Altar S is very closely connected with Stele A and B, both of 
which record the same date (9.15.0.0.0), is also proved by the fact that prac- 
tically all of the 6 undeciphered glyphs on Altar S also appear in one form 
or another, either on Stela A or B, and sometimes on both, viz: 


ALTAR S. STELA A. STELA’.D: 
Fa AQ, AII, A13a 
FD u.h. D2b, D3b, D4a, D7a Ato, A13D, B2b u. h. 
FO |. h. AI2 
Gb A12b, B6b, C7a, C1ob, D2a, Diga, D11a 
Ib Ag (superhx only) 
Jb A8sb (one element only) 


In some cases the main elements of the above glyphs are modified by 
different subordinate elements, but in general fairly close similarities exist. 
The text on Altar S as it now stands is two-thirds deciphered, and it seems 
unlikely that the remaining six glyphs can greatly change the general 
meaning of this monument, for which the writer suggests the following 
paraphrase: 






“Tt is now 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax, and the time-period x, 7. ¢., za) has 
come to an end. In another 5 katuns, which is a quarter of a cycle, on QO the 
date 7 Ahau 18 Zip, Cycle 10 Ge) will come to its end, @2® and on wwe the 
next day a new cycle will begin: 7g\ the period y, 1. ¢., also ends on this 


latter date.” 





There would seem to be little room for the record of historical events 
here, and indeed the most we could hope for would be some brief notice of 
conquest, famine, pestilence, or possibly the accession of some ruler.! 

From the foregoing analysis of this text the writer believes this altar 
was made in 9.15.0.0.0 possibly to commemorate the fact that the current 
cycle was then three-quarters over and that in another quarter of a cycle it 
would end, this part of the record being in a sense prophetic. Occasion was 
also taken at the same time to point out that another time-period had come 
to an end on the former date; and finally that Altar S itself may have been 
correlated originally either with Stela A or Stela B at the Main Structure. 


STELA D. 


Provenance: At the southern base of, and correlated with, Mound 2 on 
the northern side of the Great Plaza, Main Structure. 
(See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.15.5.0.0 10 Ahau 8 Chen. 
Text, (a) photograph: Gordon, 1896, plate 6, figure I. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 43, 44, 47. 
Spinden, 1913, plate 20, 8 (part only). 











1 See Chapter I, p. 36. 
2 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VITI. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 231 


STELA D—continued. 


Text, (b) drawing: | Catherwood, 1844, plate 5. 
Maudslay, ibid, plates 45, 46, 48. 
Morley, 1915, plate 14. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, 2 plates, facing p. 153. 
Thomas, 1904, plates 76, 77. 

References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 169, 170, and table 29. 
Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 598. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 130. 
Gordon, 1896, pp. 24, 35- 
Gordon, 1902, pp. 171, 174. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 45-47. 
Morley, 1915, pp. 188-191. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 768-771. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 159, 161, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, pp. 153, 154. 
Thomas, 1900, pp. 778, 801. 
Thomas, 1904, pp. 221-223. 


Stela D stands in front of the southern base of Mound 2, with which it 
is correlated, at the north side of the Great Plaza. It is about 3.66 meters 
high and 1.08 meters wide. Stephens gives it the name of Statue P on his 
map.! The front (south side) shows a large human figure with a mask on 
its face, holes being cut for the forehead, eyes, and mouth. The drapery 
and costume of this figure extend around and completely cover the two 
sides. The back is sculptured with two parallel columns of glyph-blocks, 
16 in all, and on the basis of this arrangement, encountered here for the first 
time, it is necessary to create a new class for this stela, namely, Class 6. 

This inscription is one of the most remarkable texts in the entire Corpus 
Inscriptionum Mayarum. ‘This distinction is due to the fact that its glyphs 
are expressed by full-figure forms; that is, instead of the heads only, the 
whole bodies of human, animal, and bird forms are employed.” This is the 
first text of its kind thus far encountered, and the first occurrence of any 
full-figure glyphs, with the single exception of the uinal-signs in the Initial 
Series of Stele 24, 15, 12, and 2, yet found. 

Texts of this character are exceedingly rare. So far as the writer knows 
there are only five full-figure Initial Series now known in the Maya Corpus: 


(1) Stela D, Copan. 

(2) Date 24, Hieroglyphic Stairway, Copan.’ 
(3) Stela D East side, Quirigua. 

(4) Stela D West side, Quirigua. 

(5) Zobmorph B, Quirigua. 


Full-figure glyphs also occur sporadically in a few other inscriptions 
here at Copan, as the uinal-signs on Stele 24, 15, 2, and 12, already noted, 


and on Altars D’ and W’. 





1 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, map facing p. 133, and p. 153. 

2 For a description of full-figure glyphs, see Morley, 1915, pp. 67, 68. 

8 Gordon (1902, p. 184) notes the possibility that there may have been another full-hgure Initial Series on the 
Hieroglyphic Stairway. An examination of the blocks thus identified leads the writer to the same conclusion 
(see p. 277), or more probably that this second full-figure Initial Series came from the temple on top of Mound 26. 
It is not included above, as being too doubtful. 


THE’ INSCRIPTIONS'UAT COPAN- 


i) 
Go 
i) 


The present text opens with the Initial Series introducing glyph in a1. 
The variable element, instead of being a head, is a complete human figure, 
the lower parts of which, however, are concealed by the tun-sign. The pair 
of comb-like lateral appendages is replaced by a pair of fishes, which, the writer 
has suggested elsewhere, may have been the original form from which this 
element was derived.! The moon-sign appears just behind the human figure. 

The Initial Series is recorded in Bi—a4, as. The cycle-sign is a parrot 
with the clasped hand, the cycle characteristic, as its lower jaw. This parrot 
is bound to the back of a human figure. The head of the latter shows the 
familiar dots of the number 9 on its cheek and a beard on its chin,” and the 
whole glyph-block unmistakably records “g cycles.” The next glyph- 
block, a2, shows two figures, one human, the other bird-like, grappling with 
each other. The former, according to Bowditch, is an eagle.*? The head of 
the human figure has the familiar tun head-dress of the head for 5 and the 
fleshless lower jaw of the head for 10. ‘The position of this glyph-block 
between the cycle in B2 and the tun in B3 Is such as to indicate that it is the 
katun-sign and that “15 katuns” are recorded here. 

The tun and its coefficient appear in B2. The former is again a bird, 
the fleshless lower jaw of which indicates that it is the tun-sign. The latter 
is a human figure with the same kind of a head as the katun coefficient, 
except that the fleshless lower jaw is lacking. ‘There is little difficulty in 
deciphering B2 as “5 tuns.’”” The uinal-sign in 3b is quite clearly a frog, 
the left arm of which is linked with the left arm of ahuman figure. The head 
of the latter has a hand across the lower part of the face, and the whole glyph- 
block therefore reads “o uinals.”’ 

The kin-sign and coefficient appear in B3. The former is a human figure 
with a grotesque head, the latter a human figure with a hand across the lower 
face, giving “‘o kins”’ for the glyph-block. 

The day of the Initial Series terminal date appears in a4. The day-sign 
is Ahau, here represented by a full human figure crouching in the day-sign 
cartouche, around the left side of which another human figure has its left 
arm linked. ‘he head of this latter has a fleshless lower jaw and a truncated 
nose, both characteristics of the head for 10. The whole glyph-block there- 
fore reads “1o Ahau.” 





1 Morley, 1915, pp. 28 and 69. See also Stela C, p. 346. 

2 Although the dots on the lower cheek are the essential characteristic of the head numeral for 9, the beard is 
also a fairly constant feature. 

3 Bowditch (1910, p. 113) makes the following timely suggestions concerning the period glyphs of this text: 
“Tt is to be noted that Nos. 35-37 of the uinal forms represent the frog Uo. The phonetic similarity of this word 
with Uinal or U, meaning moon, is noticeable. It is possible that the parrot’s head No. 30 of the cycle forms 
[nib here] and the eagle’s head No. 27 of the katun forms [a2 here] may have some relation in their phonetic 
values to the Maya names for these periods.” 

The writer believes this point can not be too strongly emphasized. It seems likely that we have in this text 
the original forms of the period glyphs, which in later times, by a process of conventionalization, were reduced to 
simpler elements. ‘Thus, as noted above in the Initial Series introducing glyph, the fin or tail of the fish (the comb- 
like lateral appendages) later replaced the whole fish. In the case of the cycle-sign, the head of the parrot later 
replaced the whole bird, etc. When the study of the Maya hieroglyphic writing reaches the point where its origin 
can be safely sought, the writer agrees with Bowditch that the full-figure glyphs of this text will be found to shed 
much light on the original forms from which the glyphs were derived. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 293 

The month-sign and coefficient are at as. The latter is a human figure 

with the head for the number 8, and the former is a large, grotesque head with- 

out body, to which the characteristics of the month Chen have been applied. 

Assembling the foregoing values, it will be found that the Initial Series 
9.15.5.0.0 10 Ahau 8 Chen is recorded here as follows: 


Ar _ Initial Series introducing glyph 


BI 9 cycles 
A215 katuns 
B2 5 tuns 
A3 © uinals 
B3 o kins 
A4 10 Ahau 
AS 8 Chen 


The glyph standing between the day and month of the Initial Series 
terminal date, B4, is the first glyph of the Supplementary Series, Glyph G, 
and it is extremely probable that other glyphs of the Supplementary Series 
appear at BS and a6. At B7) is the Zotz sign, which is found in many texts 
but is of unknown meaning. 

At a7 there is a large spherical inclusion of harder volcanic material 
which seems to have defied all efforts of the ancient sculptors to carve it in 
conformity with the requirements of the design of this glyph-block. The 
most they were able to accomplish in this direction was to reduce its surface 
until it was approximately flush with the face of the monument.' They were 
more successful, however, in removing a similar inclusion which originally 
was embedded between a3 and B3. They not only succeeded in removing this 
altogether, but also carved the concave sides of the resulting depression with 
the details of the uinal and kin glyphs. 

After the erection of Stela D, the center of building activity seems to 
have shifted from the Great Plaza to the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway 
(plate 6) where for the next katun practically all the sculptural energies of 
the city seem to have been focused. Owens’s grave is just south and in front 
of this stela. (see Chapter I, p. 25, note 6.) 


HIEROGLYPHIC STEPS, SOUTH S1pE Mounp 2. 


Provenance: On the southern slope of Mound 2 at the Main Structure, 
facing StelaD. (See plate 6.) 
Date: (Upper step) 9.14.16.11.8 1 Lamat 16 Zotz (?) 


(Lower step) 9.15.17. 0.0 1 Ahau 8 Xul (?) 
Text, (a) photograph: Gordon, 1896, plate 6, figure 1. 
(b) drawing: plate 26, g. 
References: Gordon, 1896, p. 24. 
Spinden, 1913, table 1. 

Before passing to the consideration of the Hieroglyphic Stairway of 
Mound 26, it is first necessary to describe a short inscription which was 
probably engraved during the building of that more important construction. 
At the north side of the Great Plaza on the southern slope of Mound 2 there 
are two steps of unequal length, the risers of which are sculptured with 


1 A description of this inclusion as well as of the material of the body of this stela will be found in Appendix I. 


234 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


glyphs. The upper and shorter one of the two is 1.52 meters long and 30 cm. 
high and is the more effaced. It has two parallel rows of 11 glyph-blocks each, 
or 22 for the entire step. The seventh and eighth glyph- blocks 1 in the lower 
band, G2, 2, record the following Calendar Round date: 
The day decipae: is surely either 1, 2, or 3, and since the 
lower dot is probably ornamental, 1 appears to be the best 
reading. The day-sign closely resembles the day-sign in glyph 27 on the 
east side of Stela J; indeed the two appear identical. But Glyph 27 
on Stela J was proved by calculation to be Lamat; moreover, this same 
variant for Lamat has been found elsewhere; and we may therefore accept 
this value for it here. This makes the date recorded in G2, H2 probably 1 
Lamat 16 Zotz; although 2 and 3 Lamat 16 Zotz are possibilities. Before 
attempting to fix this date in the Long Count, let us first examine the 
inscription on the lower step. The latter is not only longer but also shows an 
entirely different arrangement of glyphs. It 1s 1.78 meters long and 25 cm. 
high, and instead of having two horizontal rows there is only one, and 
instead of 22 glyph-blocks there are only 8. 

The first glyph, L, although partially effaced, is clearly the Initial 
Series introducing glyph. ‘This is followed in md, n not by an Initial Series 
number, but by a Calendar Round date: (OS It is apparent 
at the outset that we have here a very CE, unusual condi- 
tion, namely, an Initial Series introducing @xe3 (ZY) glyph, not fol- 
lowed by a corresponding Initial Series number. mb is clearly a day-sign 
(note the day-sign cartouche and tripod support), and a close examination 
shows that it is the grotesque head variant of the day Ahau.t’ The month- 
sign is at ND and is clearly Xul, both the wing subfix and small-eyed animal- 
head, characteristic of this month-sign, being unmistakable. Since the day- 
sign is Ahau, the coefficient of the month-sign must be either 3, 8, 13, or 18. 
Na appears to be either 3 or 8, that is, there is no fleshless lower jaw, and the 
last two values, 13 and 18, are therefore out of the question. 

The day-sign coefficient is either to the left of the day-sign, in which 
case it is the bird head in ma, and in that event is best as 13; or it is above, 
in which case it is either I, 2, or 3, with by far the best reading at 1. That 
it is to be found in the latter position seems probable for the following reason: 
The bird-like head in ma very closely resembles the head-variant for the 
katun-sign, the hook-like nose and the mouth-curl, both especially charac- 
teristic of the katun-sign, being present. Above this head there is room 
for a rather high coefficient, probably above 10 but below 16. 

For these three glyph-blocks, the writer suggests the following reading: 

Initial Series introducing glyph, Katun 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15, I, 2, or 3 Ahau 3 or 8 Xul. 












Assuming that the end of some even tun of one of these five katuns is 
recorded here, it will be found by referring to Goodman’s tables that the 











1 For different forms of the day Ahau; see Bowditch, 1910, plate 6; Morley, 1915, figure 16, e’-k’; and 
Appendix X. 
2 See Bowditch, 1910, plate 12, particularly Nos. 2, 4-10, and 16-20. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 235 


only tuns which fulfill the above conditions are 9.12.5.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Xul and 
g.15.17.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Xul. Since the latter is within 12 years of the date on 
Stela D, and since the former is 60 years earlier, the writer accepts the latter 
as the best reading of this date, in spite of the fact that the other possibility 
is a hotun-ending as well. 

Several points about M, moreover, support this reading. In the first 
place, there is room only for three bars, or two bars and one row of dots, 
above the katun head, and from what remains, it seems probable that the 
upper element was a bar rather than one or more dots. This would make 
Ma read “Katun 15.” The day-sign coefficient (upper part of mb) was 
placed provisionally at 1, 2, or 3. A close study, however, seems to show 
that the left and right hand dots are ornamental: ~ \= and that only the 
central dot is numerical. If this is so, the day coefficient is 1, which would 
agree with the above reading. 

It seems that we have recorded here, but in a very irregular fashion, the 
following date: Initial Series introducing glyph, Katun 15 1 Ahau 8 Xul 
(9.15.17.0.0), in which the date 1 Ahau 8 Xul is not to be regarded as ending 
Katun 15, the period actually recorded, but as occurring some time in the 
following katun, 7. ¢., in the katun-ending in 9.16.0.0.0. 

Unusual as such a procedure is, an exact parallel is found on Altar Q, 
also here at Copan. At co in this latter text is recorded “‘Katun 17” and 
immediately following, in pe, £1, the date 6 Ahau 13 Kayab. Ordinarily it 
would be assumed that Katun 17 ended on the date 6 Ahau 13 Kayab, but 
referring to Goodman’s tables, this date is found to have been 9.17.5.0.0 or 
the hotun-ending after Katun 17. The procedure is identical in both cases. 
First is recorded the number of the preceding katun, 15 in one case and 17 in 
the other, and following in each case is the terminal date of a tun in the 
next succeeding katun, Tun 17 here and Tun 5 on Altar Q. 

It is to be noted, moreover, that neither of the katun-signs in these two 
texts has an ending prefix or superfix. This, however, is corroboratory 
rather than otherwise, since the ends of these katuns are not recorded, but 
instead the ends of subdivisions of the following katuns. It seems probable, 
therefore, that the bottom step records the date 9.15.17.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Xul. 
Although the remaining glyph-blocks, o-s, are fairly clear, particularly the 
last three, Q-s, none of their glyphs can be deciphered. 

Returning to the Calendar Round date on the upper step, 1, 2, or 3 
Lamat 16 Zotz, let us find where these occurred in the Long Count nearest 
9.15.17.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Xul. By referring to Goodman’s tables these occur- 
rences will be found to have been as follows: 


9.14.16.11.8 1 Lamat 16 Zotz 
O16.,8..0.5. 4 uamateo Lotz 
9.16.17. 3.8 2 Lamat 16 Zotz 


Unfortunately not one of these shows any particularly close relations 
either with the reading suggested for the date on the lower step, 9.15.17.0.0, 
or for the date on the associated stela, 9.15.5.0.0. 


236 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The second reading above is 1.0.0.8 later than the Initial Series of Stela 
D, and the third reading is 1.0.3.8 later than the reading suggested for the 
lower step. On the other hand, the preliminary inspection of the text gives I 
as the best value for the day coefficient in G2, which gives the first reading above. 

These dates well illustrate the uncertainty to which Calendar Round 
dating gives rise.’ We are uncertain which one of them is correct, because 
no corresponding Initial Series number is recorded, nor indeed for the date on 
the lower step either. Because the date of the associated stela is 9.15.5.0.0, 
and because a Katun 15 is possibly recorded at ma, it is not unlikely that 
the Calendar Round date in md, nN, 1 Ahau 8 Xul, is 9.15.17.0.0 1 Ahau 
8 Xul, although even this reading, the surer of the two, is open to doubt. 

The choice of 9.14.16.11.8 for the Initial Series number of the Calendar 
Round date on the upper step, although leaving much to be desired, is 
perhaps the best compromise that can be effected; at all events, the day 
coefficient in G2 looks more like 1 than 2 or 3. Either of the other readings, 
however, is well within the range of probability. 

The fact that the best reading of both the day-sign coefficients is I is an 
additional item of evidence in their favor, since there is always an effort in 
Maya Secondary Series to return to the same day, though here only the same 
day coefhcient appears to have been repeated. 

Another possible explanation for this unsatisfactory inscription is that 
these sculptured steps were originally designed for use elsewhere and have 
no relation to each other as they are now assembled. In this connection it 
will be remembered that each is of different length and height, and each 
has a different glyph presentation, the upper one having two horizontal 
rows and the lower but one. The style of carving, however, is similar, and 
both would appear to have been built into the southern slope of Mound 2 at 
the same time. Moreover, a niche or break in the northern side of the Great 
Plaza seems to have been left for the approach to this mound. All things 
considered, the readings suggested are better than any others available. 

A summary of the inscription with relation to Stela D is given below: 


Upper Step G2, H2 (9.14.16.11. 8) 1 Lamat 16 Zotz 
(8. 6.12) undeclared 

Stela D, ar—Ag, As sesh e 10 Ahau 8 Chen 
1240.0) undeclared 

Lower Step Md, N (9.15.17. 0.0) 1 Ahau8 Xul 


It will be seen from the foregoing that the date of Stela D falls between 
the dates on the upper and lower steps, a not improbable arrangement for the 
three. Noteworthy features of this text are: 


1. That Initial Series introducing glyphs sometimes, though very rarely, were 
used without accompanying Initial Series numbers. This will be found to be the 
case in two other monuments of the Great Period here, namely, Stele F and C.? 





1 See Morley, 1915, pp. 76, 240-245. 
2 Stele 15, 7, and P are not to be included here, since at least one Initial Series number is recorded upon each 
of these monuments, the extra Initial Series introducing glyphs in each case being in a sense redundant. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 237 


2. [hat sometimes, though very rarely, a definite katun was recorded, and 
after it a date not ending that katun, but ending some division of the next katun, 
a point corroborated by an identical case on Altar Q. (See pp. 327, 328.) 

3. The use of the Venus variant of the day-sign Lamat. 


THe HIEROGLYPHIC STAIRWAY. 


Provenance: On the western side of Mound 26 of the Acropolis, facing 
the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, Main 
Structure. (See plate 6.) 


Date: g.16.5.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Zotz.! 
Text, (a) photograph: plates 25 and 27. 
ordon 1902, plates 1-18. 
(b) drawing: plates 26 and 27 and figures 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41. 

Spinden, 1913, plate 20, 3, and 4 (small fragments only). 
Gordon, 1902, figures I-9, 11-13, 15, d, 22, and 25. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, text-cuts on pp. 30 and 32.” 

References: Gordon, 1902. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. I of text, pp. 29-31. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 160-162 and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, pp. 134-138. 


The inscription on the Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26 at Copan 
is the longest in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum, containing as many 
as 2,500 individual glyphs, truly encyclopedic as compared with all other 
known texts.° 

The discovery and excavation of this most important construction has 
been fully described by Gordon in a special monograph, and beyond a 
brief word as to its size, character, and present condition, nothing further 
in the way of general description need be given here. 

The Hieroglyphic Stairway, including the broad flanking balustrades 
on either side, is 10.11 meters wide. Of this space, the balustrades take up 
2.13 meters (1.065 meters each) leaving 7.98 meters as the width of the 
stairway proper. When finally excavated it was found that only 10 com- 
plete steps’ and parts of 5 others were in situ at the bottom of the stairway, 
all the upper steps having fallen. 

Concerning the original number of steps in the stairway, Gordon has 
estimated, it appears with considerable accuracy, that there must have been 
about 90.° From the base of the stairway to the summit of Mound 26, 
measured on the slope, is a distance of 38 meters, and since the 16 steps’ now 
in situ measure 7. 62 meters on the slope, this would give 80 as the original 
number of steps in the stairway. 





1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 

2 Maudslay figures on p. 16 a drawing of one of the sides of Altar D’, which he at first incorrectly identified as 
a fragment from the Hieroglyphic Stairway. Subsequently, however (ibid., pp. 68, 69) he gives its true nature 
and provenance. 

3 The next longest inscription is that on the tablet from the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque. This 
contains 617 glyph-blocks, possibly 1,000 different signs. 

4 Gordon, 1902. 

5 This does not include the bottom step, which is lower and wider than all the others, and is not inscribed with 
glyphs. Unless otherwise stated, this plain bottom step is not included in the various totals following. 

6 Gordon, 1902, p. 161. 

7 This figure includes the plain bottom step. (Gordon, 1902, p. 159.) 


238 THE INSCRIPTIONS, AT? COPAN, 


Or again, Mound 26 is now 25.9 meters high, and the steps of its stair- 
way average about 30.5 cm. in height. On this basis it would have required 
85 steps of equal height to reach the present top. But Gordon assumes 
that the height of this mound has been reduced during the course of the 
centuries, by gradual erosion as well as by landslides on its north and west 
sides, by about I.5 meters, in which case the total number of steps would have 
been 90 or thereabouts.! 

Another line of evidence is that afforded by the so-called “bird symbol,” 
which was a regularly recurring ornament on the balustrades at intervals 
of every 5 steps. After the stairway had been completely excavated it was 
found that 30 of these “bird symbols” had been recovered; which, allowing 
15 for each side, makes a total of not less than 75 steps (5 X15) for the entire 
stairway.” But in the collapse of such a monumental construction it is highly 
probable that a few of them, at least 4, or possibly even 6, were destroyed. 
If so, this would bring the total number of steps up to 85 or 90, approximately 
the same number reached by the other estimates. | 

Still a fourth line of evidence gives about the same result. At regular 
intervals, along the central line of the stairway from top to bottom, were 
seated human figures of heroic size each built up of several pieces of stone. 
Only one of these, however, was found in situ, all the others having fallen to 
the bottom when the stairway collapsed. Its feet rest on the tenth step from 
the bottom and the upper lip of its enormous animal head-dress is about level 
with the fifteenth step, making the figure equal to 6 steps or 1.83 meters in 
height. Although only one of these was found in situ, parts of four others 
were recovered during the course of the excavations, and it is certain that 
originally there were at least five, if not more. If the top of the lowest of 
these five seated figures, 7. ¢., the only one im situ, is on a level with the 
fifteenth step from the bottom, the top of the fifth figure, assuming equal 
spacing between all, must have been on a level with the seventy-fifth step; 
and if one figure was lost or broken when the stairway collapsed, a natural 
enough occurrence in view of the tremendous mass of masonry which fell, 
this would add another 15 steps, making a total of go, as reached in the other 
estimates. It is not improbable, therefore, that 90 is a close approximation 
of the original number of steps in the Hieroglyphic Stairway. 

Built against the middle of the base is an altar 1.52 meters high, 3.2 
meters wide, the top extending forward 2.13 meters, on the level of the 
tread of the fifth step. Gordon® suggests that this probably bore the same 
relation to the seated figures stretching above it as do the altars found in 
front of the stele to their respective stele. In its entirety this construction 
was undoubtedly the most magnificent at Copan, and it probably marks 
the apogee of aboriginal sculpture on the American continent. 





1 This assumption seems reasonable, in view of the fact that although Maudslay found a number of beveled 
roof-stones on the slopes of Mound 26, the top itself was so eroded that he could not find even the foundations of 
the temple to which these had belonged. (See Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 30.) 

2 Gordon, 1902, pp. 160, 161. 

3 [bid., pp. 158, 159. 


INSCRIPTIONS: OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 239 


The almost complete destruction of such a masterpiece, therefore, is 
little short of a calamity, and as the discussion of its inscription proceeds, 
the irreparability of the resulting loss to students of the Maya hieroglyphic 
writing will become increasingly apparent. | 

Garcia de Palacio, writing in 1576, speaks of “a grand stairway descend- 
ing by a great number of steps to the river.’! At present there is no stairway 
at all on the east side of the Acropolis (see plate 6), nor any traces of the former 
existence of one. Indeed, there is no other stairway at the Main Structure 
which corresponds to Garcia de Palacio’s “grand stairway descending by a 
great number of steps” so well as the Hieroglyphic Stairway on the west 
slope of Mound 26. ‘Therefore, in spite of the fact that he incorrectly 
locates it on the east slope of some mound—and presumably Mound 26, 
since in this position it would lead to the river—it is not improbable that in 
the above quotation he may have referred to the Hieroglyphic Stairway 
on the west side of this mound instead. If so, it was intact in his day (1576). 

The landslide which caused the destruction of the Hieroglyphic Stair- 
way, however, must have taken place prior to the visits of Galindo and 
Stephens in 1834 and 1839 respectively, since neither makes any mention 
of a stairway here, although the latter describes several adjacent monuments, 
notably Stela M and its altar, and Stela N. On the contrary, Stephens draws 
a picture of extreme desolation and ruin in this particular part of the city: 

“The whole quadrangle is over-grown with trees, and interspersed with frag- 
ments of fine sculptures, particularly on the east side, and on the northeast corner is 


a narrow passage [the passageway between Mounds 9g and 1o, plate 6], which was 
probably a third gateway.’’’ 


Stephens was far too careful an observer to have overlooked the Hiero- 
glyphic Stairway had it been intact in his time, particularly since he describes 
and figures the monument (Stela M) and altar correlated with its base. On 
the other hand, had this landslide been of very recent occurrence, perhaps 
within a decade or two, he certainly would have noted the destruction 
wrought as recent. We may therefore conclude that the landslide which 
destroyed the Hieroglyphic Stairway occurred considerably prior to his visit 
in 1839. There exists indirect and rather unsatisfactory testimony bearing 
on this point from another source. In 1854, Scherzer, the German traveler, 
was deterred from visiting Copan because he was told by the priest at Santa 
Rosa Copan, the capital of the Department in which the ruins are located, 
that “a recent landslip had much injured the effect of these ruins.’”! 

The only landslide which has “much injured” the appearance of the 
ruins, so far as can be judged to-day, is the one which destroyed the Hiero- 





1 See Appendix IV, p. 542. 

2 The “beautiful and rich flight of steps....of hewn stone exquisitely wrought,” described by Fuentes y 
Guzman, 113 years later (7. ¢., in 1689, see Appendix V, p. 547) is probably the Jaguar Stairway on the west side 
of the Eastern Court, first because he says it has 10 or 12 steps, about the number in the Jaguar Stairway, and 
second because nearby was “a portico of excellent architecture, which is like the entrance of some palace. On the 
sides are two perfect figures of men dressed in the Spanish fashion;” in which description we can hardly fail to 
identify Temple 22 on the north side of the Eastern Court. See p. 316. 

3 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 138. 4 Scherzer, 1857, vol. 11, p. 95. 


240 ‘ THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN, 


glyphic Stairway, and this would therefore seem to be the one referred to as 
“recent”? by Scherzer’s informant in 1854.! That this landslide had taken 
place at least 50 years earlier, however, seems probable in view of the fact 
that neither Galindo nor Stephens mentions it at all, an omission which 
neither would scarcely have made had the stairway been destroyed only a few 
years before his visit. On the other hand, had the stairway been intact 
in 1689, Fuentes y Guzman would scarcely have failed to describe it, unless 
indeed his whole fanciful account of the ruins is second-hand, and he never 
saw them himself, which the writer believes. 

Let us next examine the nature of this landslide and ascertain the extent 
of the damage which it occasioned. As already explained, the excavations 
of the Fourth Peabody Museum Expedi- 


e 
tion proved that only the bottom 15 steps . d b WS 
. . . . J S > 
were in situ. When the digging was com- r SV 
. c Ss 
menced in 1892 there were parts of 15 con- is SS SS 
secutive steps on the slope of Mound 26, 5 SSS 
; : fs S 
and it was assumed that these were in ie Sse 
. . ee y re ~~ 
their original positions. (See plate 25, a, a Ss" 
: é SS 
Fic. 37.—Cross-section east and west through the - S 
Hieroglyphic Stairway of mound 26: ad, slope y “i SS 
of ground on western side of mound in 1892; cd, ama Ss 
original position of the Hieroglyphic Stairway; ty S 
ce, 15 bottom steps still in situ; fg, 15 steps found SESS SS 
on surface and in sequence, but not im situ in fiat S WS 
1892; xy, original position of steps fg. aa ara, SS 
3. SSS SS 
SS 
SVs 


S 
RSS and figure 37, fg.) Owens, then 


SG in charge of the work, began 

8 excavating to uncover the lower 

WN SS | end of this stairway, but found 

RS instead that the steps stopped 

RSS" abruptly some distance from 
NSS Puy 


f SKA the bottom of the slope (figure 37, f). At 

this point came his illness and death, and 
(2 oe the excavation of the stairway was not 
adSS RGKR—? resumed by Gordon until 1895. Diggin 
geing 


down where the steps fg came to an end, 
the latter finally reached the altar and the 15 steps in situ at the base of 
the mound (see plate 25, b, and figure 37, ce), and it then became apparent 
that the steps fg, which had at first been taken for the original stairway, 
were not im situ at all, but had slipped down from some higher position. 
What had happened appears very clearly in the east-and-west cross-section 
of Mound 26, through the Hieroglyphic Stairway, shown in figure 37. The 





‘Gordon (1902, pp. 153, 154) mentions a landslide on the north side of Mound 26 which scooped out almost 
the whole of this side, the débris being piled at the bottom of the slope. This side seems to have had only a ter- 
raced treatment, and its partial destruction could hardly have “much injured the effect of the ruins.” Cer- 
tainly the destruction of the Hieroglyphic Stairway did far more damage. 


MORLEY PLATE 25 





a. [he Hieroglyphic Stairway on the west side of Mound 26 before excavation. 


whe . 
i Bret 





b. A nearer view of the same after excavation. 


Courtesy of the Peabody Museum. 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 241 


line ab represents the western slope of Mound 26 as found by Owens in 1892 
cd, the original position of the stairway; and fg the 15 consecutive steps on 
the surface of the slope, which were mistaken for the original stairway at the 
outset of the work. These, however, were not in situ, as the excavation 
proved, but had slid down from some position nearer the top of the stair- 
way, designated in figure 37 as wy. 

There is left, then, of the original stairway, as a result of this landslide, 
two sections of 15 consecutive steps each,!' ce and fg (1. ¢., xy), figure 37, and 
two other sections of unknown lengths, ex and yd, which have fallen to 
the bottom and are hopelessly confused. The fragments of these were 
carefully removed by the Fourth Peabody Museum Expedition from the 
débris at the base of the stairway and were laid in the court, where they may 
be seen to-day in indescribable and, the writer fears, inextricable confusion, 
the wreckage of America’s greatest aboriginal effort in the science of writing. 

The fifteen consecutive steps not 7m situ but in sequence (see fg, figure 
37) were carefully removed block by block and reassembled in the court 
below in their relative positions.” These, together with the 12 or 15 in situ, 
are reproduced in plates 5 and 6 of Gordon’s monograph on the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway. In plates 12 and 13 some of the disconnected fragments are 
shown, although these are a very small fraction indeed of the rest of this 
inscription. It is apparent from the foregoing that we have preserved in its 
original order only about one-third of the inscription, 7. ¢., 30 out of 90 
steps, and even these are not all consecutive, as we have seen, half coming 
from the bottom of the stairway and half from some unknown position higher 
up. Since, from the very nature of the case, the lowest steps were built 
first, and moreover, since they are the only ones now in situ, this section 


will be described first. 


Date 1.3 
The first three steps (Gordon, 1902, plate 6, A, B, and C) show no 
decipherable glyphs, but the fourth (D) opens with an Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph at a. (See plate 26,4.) Then follows in B-p, 1) the Initial 
Series 9.5.19.3.0 8 Ahau 3 Zotz: 


A Initial Series introducing glyph 
Ba 9 cycles 

BD 5 katuns 

ca 1g tuns 

cb 3 uinals 

Da o kins 

pb 8 Ahau? 

Ib 3 Zotz 








1 Gordon reproduces only 12 steps in situ (Gordon, 1902, plate 6) as against the 15 of which he speaks on p. 157, 
making a total of 27 instead of 30 consecutive steps. This is doubtless due to the fact that the three top steps 
found in situ, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth from the bottom, not counting the plain bottom step, were 
so fragmentary that it was not thought worth while to publish them. 

2 Gordon, 1902, p. 157. 

3 Gordon also calls this Date 1 in his monograph on the stairway. (Gordon, 1902, p. 169.) 

4 Since each step is given a different letter, no vertical numerations of the glyph-blocks, as a1, BI, CI, etc., is 
necessary, and such numbers will therefore be omitted. 

5 The kins and day of this date are here recorded on the same block of stone. At the two ends, 1. ¢., before the 
kin-sign and after the day-sign, are two unsculptured bars from 5 to 6 cm. wide. It would almost appear as though 
these ends had never been finished. 


242 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


For the most part these glyphs are clear and require no comment. 
The bar in both the cycle and katun coefficients has an interior decoration, 
thus, (==); and care should be taken not to mistake it for two bars 
instead of one. The uinal coefficient is either 1, 2, or 3, with by far the best 
reading at 3. The kin coefficient looks like 0, and as the day-sign is clearly 
Ahau, it can be nothing else. Even assuming that the uinal coefficient were 
either 1 or 2, this date can only be 20 or 40 days earlier at the outside. Our 
preliminary inspection of the Initial Series number, therefore, limits us to 
three possible readings, the extremes within 40 days of each other: 


9.5519.1.0, 7 Aha 4.U0 
9.5.19.2.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip 
9.5-19.3.0 8 Ahau 3 Zotz 


An inspection of the terminal date in bd, 1b, however, at once clears up 
all uncertainty as to the date recorded, and eliminates the first two, leaving 
the third as the only reading possible here. 

The day is clearly 8 Ahau, and although the month in 1) immediately 
following Glyph A of the Supplementary Series in 1a (not shown in plate 26, d) 
is partially effaced, enough remains to show that it is 3 Zotz, and that this 
Initial Series therefore can only be 9.5.19.3.0 8 Ahau 3 Zotz. 

Gordon, through a misidentification of the uinal coefficient as 12 instead 
of 3, and of the month as Mac instead of Zotz, reaches a date g uinals later, 
namely, 9.5.19.12.0 6 Ahau 3 Mac. Even admitting that the head in 1b 
looks as much like Mac as Zotz, which it does not, the uinal coefficient can 
not be 12, as it is clearly 1, 2, or 3. Gordon reads it as 12 only by following 
an error of Goodman, who assigns the value 10 to the element above the 
month-sign: (of 1. This element, however, is clearly non-numerical, 


as can be proved in a number of instances.’ Indeed, the very passage from 
which Goodman derived his value of 10 for it, has an entirely different and 
demonstrable meaning.* In short, it is quite certain that, whatever it may 
mean, it in no way affects the numerical value of the coefficients of the glyphs 
in which it appears, and consequently cd here is 3 and not 13 uinals. 

Without attempting to explain at this point why such a very early date 
as 9.5.19.3.0 should be recorded on such a late construction as the Hiero- 
glyphic Stairway, let us pass to the consideration of the other dates of this 
text, reserving explanation of its probable meaning until all the evidence 
has been presented. 





1 Goodman, 1897, p. 130. 

2 An identical case is found in the Initial Series on Stela 11 at Yaxchilan. In a3 of this inscription, where 
the tuns of the Initial Series are recorded, this same element stands between the period-glyph and its coeflicient of 1: 
The context here clearly proves that the tun coefficient is I and not 11, as it would have to be if 
Goodman’s decipherment of this element were correct. ‘This element also appears at D3 in the same 
text between the month-sign (Tzec) and its coefhicient (8), without, however, changing the numerical 
value of the latter to 18, also proved by the accompanying calculations. 





3 See Stela C, p. 350, where it will be found that the date which has this element is 5 Ahau 8 Cumhu, probably 
9.17.2.0.0 5 Ahau 8 Cumhu, and therefore, if Goodman were correct in his decipherment of this element as 10, 
the day here would be 15 Ahau, clearly an impossible value. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF: THE GREAT PERIOD. 243 


DaTE 2. 


Passing over the glyph-blocks following 1) in Step D, we reach in od, p 
a Secondary Series composed of katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins. The katun 
coefficient, Pb, is surely under 6, and an examination of the original disclosed 
three rather wide stumps, 7. ¢., 1, 2, or 3 katuns. The tun coefficient is again 
surely under 6. The numeral is broken, but 5 appears to be the best reading. 
Both ends are gone, but there is hardly room for a dot to the right. 

The kins and uinals are in cb. 
The uinal coefficient, though badly 
effaced, was high; 15 seems to be 
the best reading. Careful study of 
the coefficient to the left (7. ¢., the 
kin coefficient) showed 1 bar and 3 
dots, the upper one being almost 
entirely destroyed. The best read- 
ing of this number would therefore 
Bpear to be 1.2, or 3.5.15.3;.but 
before deciding definitely let us ex- 
amine the corresponding terminal 
Gate ats. (see tigure 38, a.) «the 
day coefficient is 8, and the day- 
sign looks like Ahau, but is Lamat. 
This is not only proved by the cal- 
culations, but the ear-ornament of 


g the head in sa is the same as 





the ear-ornament in the day- 

sign in Date 26 on this same 
stairway (see plate 27, Gb), which 
is surely Lamat. For other occur- 
rences of this Venus variant of La- 
mat see note 2, page 150, and fig- 
ure 39. 

The month coefficient is 6, and Fic. 38.—Dates from the Hieroglyphic Stairway: a, 
the month-sign, though very unus- Date 2; b, Date 3; ¢, Date 7; d, Date 8; 

Te inok like Ch M AueWate lows.) Wate lise. Waters; 2; 

ual, looks more like Chen or Mac APOE er eee 
than anything else. If the Second- 
ary Series in od, P is 1.5.15.18, and is added to Date 1, 9.5.19.3.0 8 Ahau 3 
Zotz, it will be seen that the month-sign here must be Mac. 





A-D,1b 9.5.19. 3.0 8 Ahau 3 Zotz 
ob, P LR LS 
s 9.7. 5. 0.8 8 Lamat 6 Mac 
Since use of the katun coefficient in pb as 1 agrees with the best reading 
of the date in s, the second and third possible values for the former, 2 and 3 
respectively, may be disregarded and the reading accepted as given. 


244 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Another consideration also supports the selection of 1 as the katun 
coefficient in pb. The use of 2 or 3 gives rise to impossible values for the 
terminal date actually recorded in s, viz: 

9.5.19. 3.0 8 Ahau3 Zotz, or 9.5.19. 3.0 8 Ahau 3 Zotz 
oe Oy yh! 36 °S:15-0 
9.8. 5.0.8 6 Lamat 6 Mol, 9.9. 5. 0.8 4 Lamat 6 Zip 

In the first case, although the day coefficient might possibly be 6, the 
month-sign can not be Mol, and in the second case, the day coefficient can 
not be 4 and the month-sign can not be Zip. More important than either 





Fic. 39.—Venus variants of the day-sign Lamat from: a, Palenque, Palace, 
Stairway of House C; 2, Copan, Stela J; c, Hieroglyphic Steps of 
Mound 2; d, Stela 23; e¢, fragment Hieroglyphic Stairway; f, Hier- 
oglyphic Stairway, Date 2; g, Hieroglyphic Stairway, Date 3; 
h, Hieroglyphic Stairway, Date 24. 


of these considerations, however, is the fact that the next step (E) opens with 
the Initial Series 9.7.5.0.8 8 Lamat 6 Mac, 7. e., Date 3, which is identical 
with the above reading of Date 2. 

Date 3.! 


The fifth step (EF) opens with an Initial Series just below the one on 
Step D. Although this is much damaged, the reading suggested is probably 
correct. The Initial Series introducing glyph and 9 cycles are clear at a and 
Ba respectively. The katun coefficient, Bb, always the most important factor 
in deciphering dates, is equally clear as 7 OAc . The tun coefficient, ca, 
is entirely effaced. The uinal coefficient, cb, is doubtful, ¢x=r> 
the best reading being o. The kin coefficient in pa is entirely gone. ““ *?): 
Fortunately, the day-sign in pb is very clearly Lamat (note the Venus-sign 
in the ear-ornament in figure 38, b), and therefore the destroyed kin coeffi- 
cient in pa must have been 8. The day-coefficient is either 6, 7, or 8, with 
the best reading as 8. 

Finally, cb is Glyph A of the Supplementary Series and Ha, the month, 
is 6 Mac (see figure 38, b). Collecting these values, we have: 9.7.?.?.8 
6, 7, or 8 Lamat 6 Mac. Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found 
that the only places in Katun 7 where all the necessary conditions imposed 











1 Gordon (1902, p. 171) calls this Date 2. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 245 


by the terminal date are fulfilled are 9.7.5.0.8 8 Lamat 6 Mac and 9.7.17.3.8 
7 Lamat 6 Mac. But the uinal coefficient can not be 3, and, moreover, the 
first reading is exactly the same as Date 2. In view of these facts, the 
only reading at all probable here is the first suggested above: 

A Initial Series introducing glyph 

Ba 9g cycles 

Bb 7 katuns 

Ca” **s*tuns 

cb O.uinals 

pa 8 kins 

pb = 8 Lamat 

Ha 6 Mac 

The purpose here would appear to have been to have Step E open with 

the same date, declared as an Initial Series, as the closing date on D, the next 
step above. How far this practice may have extended to other steps on the 
stairway it is now impossible to say, owing to the destruction of the greater 
part of the inscription, but such appears to have been the case here at the 
bottom, at least. Gordon suggests two readings for this date: 9.8.8.6.5 
7 Chicchan 8 Mac and 9.8.12.7.5 11 Chicchan 8 Mac, favoring the former.! 
However, since each demands that the katun coefficient be 8 instead of 7 as 


actually recorded, both may be rejected. 
Dates 4 AND 5.? 


Dates 4 and 5, at the end of Step EF and the beginning of Step F, are 
almost entirely effaced, and exact decipherment is difficult, if indeed not 
impossible. The interpretation suggested depends upon the postulate just 
noted, that the closing date on Step E is the same as the opening date on 
Step F, and connected by the Secondary Series in N-Q (Step E) with the 
Initial Series date at the beginning of Step E. We have already seen that 
such a relation exists between the beginning and closing dates on Step D 
and the opening date on Step E, and if this same relation obtains between 
Dates 4 and 5, it is possible to reach three readings for each of them, one of 
which must be correct under the postulate. The accuracy of this postulate 
is by no means established, and since the glyphs are badly effaced, this read- 
ing, although probably correct, should be accepted with reservation. 

Passing over Hb-M (Step E), we reach in N-Q a Secondary Series followed 
by a date at sb, ta(?). ‘The former is composed of katuns, tuns, uinals, and 
kins, of which only the tun coefficient in p is certain. This is 9. The uinal 


coefficient in o is a head variant and is clearly above 10. The best 
readings are 14, 16, or 17. The katun coefficient is a small head of 
human aspect. As will appear in connection with Date 5, if our pos- 


tulate is correct, this coefficient must be either 1, 2, or 3. A day-sign is 
recorded at sb, the coefficient of which is best as 1, 2, or 3, and there may be 
a month-sign at ‘Ta, although this is doubtful. If so, the best reading of its 


coefficient is also I, 2, or 3. 








1 Gordon, 1902, pp. 171, 172. 2 Gordon (1902. p. 172) calis this Date 3. 


246 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Step F opens with an Initial Series, the only surely decipherable parts of 
which are the cycle and katun coefficients and the month. The cycle 
coefficient Ba, is 9, and the katun coefficient, Bd, is surely above 5 and under 
10, 7. ¢., 6, 7, 8, or 9. Of these, 9 is the best reading, as there appear to be 
traces of four dots above the one bar }+*+4. The month is surely 18 
Kayab, and the day coefficient is 6, 7, or 8. Under the terms of our postulate 
that Dates 4 and 5 are the same, and that the Secondary Series recorded in 
N-Q indicates their distance from the Initial Series on Step E, 7. ¢., Date 3, 
there are only three possible values for Dates 4 and 5, as follows: 

Dated. (9.77. 50.88 8 Lamat 6 Mac) (9-7.' 5. of 8 8 Lamat 6 Mae) 


TenOoll 27. 22. 9:16,17 
Date 5. 9. 8.14.12. 5 12 Chicchan 18 Kayab 9.9.14.17. 5 6 Chicchan 18 Kayab 


Dates: 100-7 he Oacd 8 Lamat 6 Mac.) 
@. O. 1.3.12 
Date 5. 9.10.14. 4. 0 12 Ahau 18 Kayab. 

Since the uinal coefficient in the Secondary Series at 0 on Step E can 
be neither 11 (first possibility above) or 3 (third possibility above), the sec- 
ond reading, 9.9.14.17.5 6 Chicchan 18 Kayab, is the only one possible 
under the postulate. | 

Several minor points tend to confirm this reading. The uinal coefficient 
at 0, as we have already seen, is possibly either 14, 16, or 17, a fleshless lower 
jaw and large eye-socket showing clearly. Coming to Date 5, we have seen 
that the katun coefficient is probably 9. Close study shows that the tun 
coefficient is above 10 and under 15; this reading gives 14. The uinal coef- 
ficient shows that it is above 15 and must be under 18; this reading gives 
17. Finally, the best reading of the day coefficient is 6, 7, or 8; this read- 
ing gives 6. 

The chief objection to this interpretation is that the day coefficient in 
sb, Step E, apparently looks more like 1, 2, or 3 than 6, or even 7 or 8; but 
sb is partially effaced and the other agreements are so satisfactory that the 
writer is inclined to accept 9.9.14.17.5 6 Chicchan 18 Kayab as correct. 

Gordon suggests two readings for this date: 9.9.14.17.4 5 Kan 17 Kayab 
and 9.9.18.18.4, 9 Kan 17 Kayab, favoring the former.’ It will be noted that 
his first reading is only 1 day before the reading suggested above; but since the 
month coefficient is surely 18, not 17, these two may be regarded as identical. 
Gordon’s second reading may be eliminated, because the tun coefficient can 
not be above 14. 

DaTE 6. 


In N-Q on Step F there is a Secondary Series composed of katuns, tuns, 
uinals, and kins, (Date 6), of which all the coefficients except that of the 
katun are effaced, and even that is a head numeral of unknown value. As 
the corresponding terminal date is missing, no reading can be suggested here. 

‘Gordon, 1902, p. 172. His transcription of the second date as 9.9.18.18.4, instead of 9.9.19.0.4, that is 


writing 18 uinals instead of its equivalent, 1 tun, is not only un-Maya in spirit, but also is contrary to the gen- 
erally accepted method of transcribing Maya dates. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 247 


Date 7. 


The next step, G, has no decipherable glyphs, and there appear to be 
no dates recorded on it. The next step, however, H, opens with a day, the 
day-sign of which is effaced and the coefficient almost so. Enough remains 
to show that it was a head numeral of unknown value. This same day may 
be repeated in the date in 0, p on the same step, however, toward the right 
of the stairway, the month of which is almost certainly 17 Yaxkin. (See 
figure 38,c.) Unfortunately, the day coefficient and sign are badly weathered. 
The latter must have been either Kan, Muluc, Ix, or Cauac, since only these 
days could have a corresponding month coefficient of 17. The loss of the 
day coefficient, however, prevents further decipherment at this point, but, 
as will appear later in connection with Dates 8 and 9g following, it is probably 
possible to postulate that Dates 7 and 9 on the one band and Dates 8 and to 
on the other are the same, and thus to reach a reading for Date 7. 


Dates 8 AND 9. 


There may be a Secondary Series on Step I at B—p but the glyphs here 
are too badly weathered to distinguish details. At Q on Step I is a day 12?. 
As 12 Muluc is the last day on the left of the bottom step nearby, this day 
in g may possibly be 12 Muluc also. The next step, J, has no dates; the left 
half is fairly well preserved, and the right half sufficiently so to show the 
absence of calendary glyphs. 

It is indeed unfortunate that the next to last step, K, is not in as good 
condition as the step above it. In general, the glyphs on this step are in an 
excellent state of preservation, with the exception of the upper edges, which 
are broken in most places. As the bar-and-dot coefficients were recorded 
above most of the glyphs on this step, most of them are damaged. The 
readings suggested for Dates 8 and 9, therefore, again rest upon a necessary 
postulate, namely, that Dates 7 and 9 on the one hand and Dates 8 and 10 
on the other are the same. 


Date 8. 


Step K opens with a date (see figure 38, d) which the writer believes is 
exactly the same as Date 10 just below it, namely, 12 Muluc 7 Muan. (Com- 
pare figure 38, d, with F and H, plate 26, a, where these resemblances are readily 
apparent.) A similar relationship has already been definitely established 
between Dates 2 and 3 on successive steps above, and probably between 
Dates 4 and 5 on successive steps above, and in view of the striking agree- 
ments developed by comparison of these two dates, the writer believes that 
Date 8 on Step K is 12 Muluc 7 Muan. But in the case of Date Io, as we will 
presently see, an accompanying Initial Series number declares it to have 
been 9.13.18.17-9 12 Muluc 7 Muan. Therefore the same Initial Series value 
probably may be assigned to the 12 Muluc 7 Muan of Date 8 on Step K. 

Following Date 8, there is a Secondary Series in cd, p, and in Ed, probably 
the day from which this series is counted in order to reach Date 8. The day- 


248 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


sign coefficient is surely 9 -y-y and if the terminal date of this series is 
12 Muluc 7 Muan (Date 8), ie the day-sign in Eb must be Cauac. This 
is true because the kin coefficient of the Secondary Series in cb is unmistak- 
ably 10, and 10 backward from Muluc gives Cauac. 

The kin coefficient in cb, however, is the only coefficient in this Second- 
ary Series which is certain. The uinal coefficient cb appears to be composed 
of one bar and four dots, 7. e., 9, but this is somewhat doubtful. ~~~ 
The tun coefficient, pa, is the highest in the series. There seems to be 
room for anumber between 11 and 15, inclusive, that is, a number composed of 
two bars and one or more dots, or three bars. In support of this higher value 
for the tun coefficient than those of the uinal and katun, it should be noted 
that the tun-sign is lower than the katun and uinal-signs on each side of it, 
as though more space had been necessary for its coefficient. The katun 
coefficient is above 5 and below 11 and probably below to. 

Returning once more to our postulate that Dates 7 and g are the same, 
we can now fill in the destroyed day of Date 7 as 9 Cauac (the day of Date 
g), and Date 7 then becomes 9 Cauac 17 Yaxkin. 

Our problem, then, is to find an Initial Series for g Cauac 17 Yaxkin 
which can be joined to 9.13.18.17.9 12 Muluc 7 Muan (Date 8), by the 
Secondary Series in cb, D on Step K. 

Since the katun coefficient of this Secondary Series is either 6, 7, 8, 9, 
or 10, Date 7 must be in Katuns 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7. By referring to Goodman’s 
tables, it will be found that g Cauac 17 Yaxkin occurred only thrice in these 
five katuns, as follows: 9.3.11.12.19, 9.6.4.7.19, and 9.8.17.2.19. Subtracting 
each one of these dates from 9.13.18.17.9, one of the resulting differences 
should, if our procedure and postulate be correct, correspond with the 
Secondary Series in cb, D: 


G.13118.17;-0 9.13.18.17)' 9 9.13.18.17. 9 
Q. 3. L1s12s19 0. G4): 2.99 9. B17. 2.19 
10; "7s 4010 Ths OKC 5. Tsl4ato 


A comparison of these differences with the several coefficients of the 
Secondary Series in cb—p shows clearly that the second, 7.14.9.10, is the only 
one possible here. ‘The best value of the uinal coefficient above was seen to 
be 9, and the tun coefficient was seen to be between Io and 16 exclusive; 
finally, the katun coefficient is between 5 and 11 exclusive. Both the first 
and third differences disagree for each of these values, as determined by 
inspection, and it therefore may be concluded, if our postulate is correct, 
that Dates 7 and 9 are 9.6.4.7.19 g Cauac 17 Yaxkin, and that the Secondary 
Series in cb—p, Step K, connecting Dates 7 and 9 with Date 8, is 7.14.9.10, 
viz: 


Dates 7 and 9979.26.04 9-90 g Cauac 17 Yaxkin 


7.14. 9.10 
Date 8 9.13.18.17. 9 12 Muluc 7 Muan 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 249 


Date 10.1 


The last date on the Hieroglyphic Stairway (see plate 26, a) is fortunately 
decipherable. It is an Initial Series and commences on the next to bottom 
step (K), just to the right of the large altar at the base.2. The Initial Series 
introducing glyph at p and the cycles at Q are almost entirely effaced. (See 
plate 26, a.) The coefficient of the latter, however, is 9. Although only 
partly effaced, the katun coefficient, Ra, is somewhat uncertain, the best 
reading being 13. The tun coefficient, sa, is a normal-form head of doubtful 
value. The uinal coefficient, Ta, is surely either 12 or 17, and the kin coeffi- 
cient, TD, is surely 9. | 

The Initial Series terminal date is recorded on the bottom step, L, at 
a,c. It is 12 ? 7,or 17 Muan, but since the kin coefficient is 9, the day-sign 
must be Muluc, and we have for the Initial Series terminal date 12 Muluc 
7 or 17 Muan. It can be found by calculation that the only places in Katun 
13 where these two dates could have occurred are: 9.13.18.17.9 12 Muluc 7 
Muan and 9g.13.8.15.9 12 Muluc 17 Muan. Since the uinal coefficient is 15 
in the second reading, it may be eliminated, and we have left as the only 
possible reading for Date 10, 9.13.18.17.9 12 Muluc 7 Muan, recorded as 


follows: 
Step K Pp Initial Series introducing glyph 


Q 9 cycles 
R 13 katuns 
S 18 tuns 
Ta 17 uinals 
TD g kins 
Step L a 12 Muluc 
c 7 Muan 


Following this in p-R is the corresponding Supplementary Series. 

Gordon suggests the reading 11.13.9.14.9 12 Muluc 7 Muan for Date 
10,° reaching the same value for the terminal date as the writer, but differ- 
ing as to its corresponding Initial Series number. His value for Date to, 
if correct, would make it the latest Initial Series known anywhere in the Old 
Empire by more than 600 years, and for this reason alone, if for no other, it 
should be viewed with suspicion.t Moreover, against Gordon’s reading there 
is another fundamental objection, namely, that throughout the entire range 
of the Maya hieroglyphic writing no certain Cycle 11 Initial Series is known. 
Indeed, it is highly probable that the Initial Series method of recording dates 








1 Gordon (1902, p. 173) calls this Date 4. 

2 This date and the next, No. 11, might possibly be included with Stela 4 and Altar I’ here at Copan and Stela 
10 at Tikal, as exceptions to the general rule that Initial Series introducing glyphs only occupy the first positions 
in the several texts where they occur. Strictly speaking, this is true, but the cases are hardly parallel, and the 
arrangement of this particular text is such, the longest in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarun, that the writer has 
not thought it necessary to regard them as exceptions, 

3 Gordon, 1902, pp. 173-177: 

4The latest Initial Series known in the Old Empire (with this improbable exception) is Stela 2 from Quen 
Santo, in the Department of Huehuetenango, Guatemala (see plate 1). It records the date 10.2.10.0.0. 2 Ahau 
13 Chen, and is over 600 years earlier than Gordon’s reading of Date to. 


250 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


passed out of use, if indeed not out of memory, before Cycle 11 began.! Thus, 
while he correctly deciphers the Initial Series terminal date as 12 Muluc 7 
Muan and the katun and kin coefficients as 13 and 9 respectively, his mis- 
identification of the cycle, tun, and uinal coefficients as 11, 9, and 14 respec- 
tively leads him astray, and makes necessary the rejection of his reading. 
There are no other dates on this step. 

This concludes the discussion of the steps 7m situ, which we have seen 
contain four Initial Series—Dates 1, 3, 5, and 10. Let us next examine the 
15 steps which slid down from some higher part of the stairway, but which 
still retain their original sequence, 1. ¢., fg, figure 37. (See Gordon, 1902, 
plate 5.) 

The first step of this section, M (Gordon, 1902, plate 5, A),? is incom- 
plete, and shows no dates. The next step, N, is also very fragmentary. There 
is a Secondary Series composed of 6, 7, or 8 kins, 9 uinals, and 11 tuns at 
JK, but as L is destroyed it is impossible to tell whether it contained any 
katuns or not; the terminal date is wanting, and indeed the whole series is so 
fragmentary that it is impossible to decipher it further. 

The next step, O, begins with a curious glyph in which the tun-sign 
appears, but with no other known period glyphs, and p is 8 Ahau, but as 
E is destroyed it is impossible to even approximate its position in the Long 
Count. 

Darr lie 


The first three glyph-blocks on Step P, a-c, present no familiar signs. 
Next probably came one of the large seated human figures occupying the 
space of four glyph-blocks, p-c. The next three, H—-], are occupied by a 
crouching human figure; and this is followed in kK by an Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph. Although the right half of this is missing, enough remains to 
render its identification certain. The left half of L is also missing, but the 
right half shows that it had been the cycle-sign and its coefficient. We are 





1 Tt is possible that the Initial Series in the Temple of the Initial Series at Holactun, Yucatan, may record 
the following Cycle 11 date, 11.2.8.4.9 7 Muluc 17 Tzec (see Morley, 1918a, p. 274), and there are also several 
Cycle 11 Period Ending dates known. (See Appendix II, pp. 510, 511). Gordon suggests the Secondary Series 
11.14.5.1.0 on Stela C may record a Cycle 11 date: 

“The probable exception referred to is Stela C, Copan, which has on the south side an inscription having a 
date which would seem to be not far removed from Date 4 [Date Io here], and it is not unlikely that when the 
dates on Stela C are understood, this monument will be found to belong to the same period as the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway. The two monuments have certain technical affinities in the carving, as though they might have been 
the work of the same master.” (1902, p. 185.) 

As will appear in the discussion of Stela C (pp. 345-351), this text will not permit such an interpretation. To 
begin with, a6d is 11 cycles and not Cycle 11 of Maya chronology; and instead of reaching forward from Cycle 9 
(the cycle of the historic epoch at all the southern cities) to Cycle 11, this count actually reaches backward to a date 
before the starting-point of Maya chronology. In other words, instead of being an Initial Series, as it would have 
to be to record a Cycle 11 date as Gordon suggests, A5—A6 is simply a Secondary Series of 11.14.5.1.0 which 
reaches backward from the date (9.16.12.13.0) 6 Ahau 13 Muan in ag to (18.2.7.12.0) 6 Ahau 18 Kayab in 
a7b-a8a, more than 700 years before the starting-point of Maya chronology, and in the previous great-cycle 
(18) to that of the historic period (19). 

2In the present discussion these steps have been given continuous lettering with the steps im situ, that is, 
Step M is the first of this section. 

3 Gordon (1902, p. 178) calls this Date 6; his Date 5 is the Initial Series introducing glyph at E, plate 12, here 
described as Date 28. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 251 


perfectly justified in filling in the latter as 9. Gordon incorrectly shows two 
whole glyph-blocks missing between the Initial Series introducing glyph and 
the cycle-sign (Gordon, 1902, plate 5, ps and p9); but he calls attention to 
this error in the text, and states (as here) that no complete glyph-block is 
missing, only the right half of K and the left half of L.1. The katun coefficient, 
Md, is surely 15 and the tun coefficient, Md, is equally clear as 12. The uinal 
and kin coefficients, Na and Nd, respectively, are both 10. The day of the 
Initial Series terminal date is recorded at oa and is 10 Oc, and the month at 
ra and is 3 Cumhu.” (See figure 38,f/.) Collecting these values, the Initial 
Series here recorded will be found to be 9.15.12.10.10 10 Oc 3 Cumhu, as 


follows: 


Step P, K _ Initial Series introducing glyph 
L 9 cycles 
Ma 15 katuns 
Mb 12 tuns 
Na 10 uinals 
Nb to kins 
oa 100c 
Ra 3 Cumhu 


Gordon, in deciphering this date, makes several errors that lead him to a 
series of five possible readings, the extremes of which are over 325,000 years 
apart,’ and the nearest over 41,000 years later than Stele M and N, or in 
fact than the latest known monument anywhere. 

These truly colossal time conceptions may well have been entertained 
in the abstract by the Maya priests, as Gordon points out, and indeed as the 
writer himself believes; but that even the nearest of his readings is the 
correct value of Date 11 1s practically impossible. His conclusions rest on a 
series of misidentifications, as follows: His first error is in supposing that the 
month 13 Pop (a, Step Q) is part of the terminal date of the Initial Series on 
Step P above, and further, that the coefficient of the day reached by this 
Initial Series is 11 instead of 10, as actually recorded. Having made this 
initial mistake, he is obliged to go over 41,000 years forward in the Maya 
chronological system before he can find the nearest date fulfilling all the 
conditions he himself has imposed. 

The date actually recorded here has already been set forth. The day 
of the Initial Series is 10 Oc not 11 Oc and the corresponding month is 3 
Cumhu (ra, Step P) and not 13 Pop (a, Step Q). The latter is part of Date 
12, namely, 12 Oc 13 Pop, from which a Secondary Series of 6.5.10 in L, Step 
R, is counted. 

By reading this Secondary Series in two different ways, first as 6.10.5 and 
second as 6.5.10, Gordon reaches two different dates 12 Men 8 Pop and 6 
Ahau 13 Tzec, neither of which, however, 1s found in the text. The first he 











1 Gordon, 1902, p. 178. 

2 This block of stone, having the right edge of 0, all of p, Q, R, and the left edge of s,is Altar A’ (see p. 68) of 
the Early Period. 

3 Gordon, 1902, pp. 178-181. 

4 Morley, 1915, pp. 107-127. 


252 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


believes occurs at Md, Na Step Q, but this as we have already seen is 12 Oc. 
The second he sees at B, Step R, but this is 7 Ahau 13 Tzec, as will appear 
in connection with Date 13. 

Aside from the actual disagreements which his readings present with the 
text as recorded, his dates must be rejected on the grounds of extreme his- 
toric improbability, if indeed not impossibility. The reading suggested here, 
on the other hand, is within less than a katun of the date on the monument, 
which Gordon himself admits was probably correlated with the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway, namely, Stela M.! 

Dates 12 anv 13. 

Step Q opens with the month-sign and coefficient 13 Pop, its correspond- 
ing day possibly being the missing glyph T at the right end of the preceding 
step (P). Passing over this fragmentary date (Date 12) for the moment, let 
us examine the next calculation, L, Step Q. Here is a Secondary Series com- 
posed of 6.5.10 and in Md a day-sign with the coefficient 12. (See figure 38, ¢.) 
The day-sign is a grotesque head not unlike the sign for Oc at oa on Step P. 

Following along through the inscription, no more glyphs of a calendary 
nature are found until we reach the second glyph-block, B, on the next step, 
R, where the date 7 Ahau 13 Tzec is recorded (see figure 38, g), followed 
by a well-known hand ending-sign in p. By counting backward 6.5.10 from 
7 Ahau 13 Tzec, the date reached will be found to be 12 Oc 13 Pop, and we 
have just seen that this month was in fact the first glyph on Step Q, and a 
day 12? is actually recorded in Md on the same step immediately following 
6.5.10. The next question is, what positions in the Long Count did these 
two Calendar Round dates occupy? 

In solving this question, it should be borne in mind that these dates 
are probably to be looked for first in the vicinity of 9.15.12.10.10 10 Oc 3 
Cumhu, the nearest Initial Series to them. By calculation it can be shown 
that 7 Ahau 13 Tzec occurred nearest 9.15.12.10.10 at 9.15.11.16.0, less than 
a year earlier (250 days). Counting 6.5.10 backward from this date, the 
Initial Series corresponding to 12 Oc 13 Pop will be found to have been 
9.15.5.10.10, as follows: 

Date 13. 9.15.11.16. 0 7 Ahau 13 Tzec 
6. 5.10 backward 
Datel2) 79.15, '5-10;16 #12 Uciistron 

And this value for Date 12, moreover, is further corroborated by being 

just 7 tuns earlier than Date 11: 


O.DR eel 010g elt OC tL Tenn 
(7. 0. ©) not declared 
9.15.12.10. tow e1o.0c tiflomne 


A summary of Dates 11, 12, and 13 follows: 


Step P K-04, R4-9.15.12.10.10 100c 3 Cumhu — (Date 11) 
Step P (7. 0. ©) not declared 

Steps PandQ Tf,a,Mb 9.15. 5.10.10 12 Oc 13 Pop (Date 12) 
Step Q L 6. 5.10 

Step R B O.16.11.10.30 7 Ahau 13 Tzec = (Date 13) 
Step R D Ending 





1 Gordon, 1902, p. 164. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 253 


It has been noted that the day 12 Oc was probably the last glyph in 
Step P, T, in order to precede immediately its corresponding month-part 13 
Pop, the first glyph in Step Q, a. The day 12 Oc was again repeated in md, 
Step Q, after the Secondary Series number 6.5.10, in order to show that the 
starting-point of this count was 9.15.5.10.10 12 Oc 13 Pop, as the record 
of the day alone was sufficient to indicate the starting-point in most cases.! 


Date 14. 


On the next step, S, there is Secondary Series at M6, N preceded by the 
usual Secondary Series introducing glyph. The kin coefficient is clearly o. 
The uinal coefficient is badly weathered; it seems to be about the same 
thickness and shape as the kin coefficient, and may be o also. In any case 
it can not be above 5. The tun coefficient is surely 1, 2, or 3. The right- 
hand dot shows clearly. The next glyph is of unknown meaning, but the 
next two (see figure 38, i) record the date 7 Ahau 13 Tzec, which is doubtless 
9.15.11.16.0 7 Ahau 13 Tzec, 7. e., Date 13. The day-sign is somewhat 
effaced, but this identification appears beyond doubt. If this is the terminal 
date of the series, and if the uinal coefficient is 0, three different readings may 
be suggested: 


9.15.10.16.0 11 Ahau 18 Tzec isd, L000 2. finale tek Ul 
I. 0.0 2.20.0 
9.15.11.16.0 7 Ahau 13 Tzec 9.15:11-16:0 7 Ahau'13- Tzec 
9.15. 8.16.0 6Ahau 8 Xul 
40.0 


5.641.160 7 Ahau sz Izec 


If, on the other hand, 7 Ahau 13 Tzec is the starting-point, as may well 

be, the best reading 1s 

Wie t160° er Ahawts Pzét 

592.0 

9.15.15. 0.0 9g Ahau 18 Xul 
which also has the merit of ending a hotun in the Long Count. But all of 
these readings are so problematical that no one is to be preferred to another, 
except that on the grounds of antecedent probability the last is more likely 
to be correct than the other three, because it ends the nearest hotun in the 
Long Count. 

From this point on to the end of this section of the stairway (Steps S—A’) 
there are no decipherable glyphs. Occasionally day-signs appear here and 
there (Fb, Step U; Kd, Step Z; and c, Step A’, for example), but these are 
not only badly weathered, but also they can not be connected with any 
known dates or even with each other, and the text is undecipherable from 
this point on. 

This ends the second and last section of steps which are in their original 
order. The remaining dates have been pieced together, from fragments 
found in the débris at the bottom of the stairway. These must have come 





1 Gordon believes (1902, p. 180) that Na, Step Q (his EI4a) is the month-part corresponding with the day in 
mb. A careful examination of the original, however, did not lead the writer to this conclusion. 


254 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


either from above Steps M-—A’, that is, section yd, figure 37, or between 
Steps A-L, and Steps M-A’, that is, section ex, figure 37. 

Reasons will be advanced later tending to show that the next six dates, 
Nos. 15 to 20, probably came from the latter section, ex, just above the only 
section now in situ, 1. ¢., from just above e in figure 37. 


Date 15. 


Date 15 is presented on two blocks of stone, the first 1.52 meters long, 
the second 1.22 meters long. The glyph-blocks are 27 cm. high. (See plate 
26, c;) also, Gordon, 1902, plate 12, R, first block, and c, second block.) The 
coefficients of all the period glyphs are clear and record the Initial Series 
number 9.5.17.13.7. Although the day-sign is effaced, its coefficient is surely 
I, 2, or 3, with 2 or 3 much better than 1, and since the kin coefficient in pa 
is 7, the missing day-sign must have been Manik. Solving this Initial 
Series number for its terminal date, it will be found by calculation to have 
been 9.5.17.13.7 2 Manik o Muan, and the day coefficient is therefore 2, not 3. 
The next glyph, g, is entirely effaced, and the right half is missing. It prob- 
ably recorded the first glyph of the Supplementary Series. 

Near where the first block was found, on the stairway, the second block 
mentioned above was uncovered. This opens with a sign surmounted by the 
number 9, probably Glyph A of the Supplementary Series, and following it 
very clearly is ? Muan. The writer believes this sign is the month of the 
above Initial Series terminal date and is to be read o Muan. Several factors 
point to sucha conclusion. First, these two blocks were found close together. 
Indeed, in one of the Peabody Museum photographs? taken before the steps 
in situ had been excavated (figure 37, ce), and after those in order but not in 
situ had been removed (figure 37, fg), these two blocks are shown arranged 
together, with a third block standing between them. This third block 
between has the lahuntun-sign, followed by 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu, which can 
hardly be other than 9.13.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu,* and wherever else it may 
belong, it is certain that it can not follow the first block above and record 
the terminal date of its Initial Series. The block with the month Muan 
(the last in plate 26, c), on the other hand, must have been discovered near 
by, or otherwise it would not be found with the first block of Date 15 in 
the Peabody Museum photograph. Moreover, it presents the proper glyphs, 
the last glyph of the Supplementary Series, and the month ? Muan. And 
finally, from what little remains of the month coefficient, it looks more like 
o than anything else. (See plate 26, c.) Giving these factors due considera- 
tion, it seems probable, therefore, that this block records the month of this 
Initial Series terminal date, and that formerly another block stood between 
it and the first block above, although not the one shown in the Peabody 








1 Only the left end of the second block is shown in plate 26, c, 7. e., the glyph-block recording Glyph A of the 
Supplementary Series, and the month, o Muan, of the Initial Series terminal date. 

2 This photograph is No. 385 in the Peabody Museum catalogue of photographs. 

8 This date is discussed as Date 21, pp. 256, 257. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 255 


Museum photograph, the missing block having had the greater part of the 
corresponding Supplementary Series. In any event, however, Date 15 is 
surely deciphered as given: 
Block 1 A Initial Series introducing glyph 
Ba 9 cycles 
BD 5 katuns 


Ca 17 tuns 
cb 13, uinals 


Da 7 kins 
bb 2 Manik 
Block 3? o Muan 
Date 16. 


In the same Peabody Museum photograph, which shows the two blocks 
of Date 15 (No. 385), in fact immediately above them, as though it began 
the next step above in the stairway, is shown a single block of stone 89 cm. 
long, presenting the first two glyph-blocks and part of the third of an Initial 
Series. (See Gordon, 1902, plate 12, rR, second block.) Unfortunately the 
cycle and katun coefficients in B are both destroyed. The former, however, 
appears to have been almost twice as thick as the latter, and comparing these 
with the corresponding coefficients in Dates 15 and 17, it seems highly 
probable that the katun coefficient of Date 16 was not above 5; and indeed 
the best reading would appear to be 5. C—Q The tun coefficient was either 
13 or 18. Two bars and three dots » show clearly, and then comes 
the right edge of the stone. The date, $ though fragmentary, may be de- 
ciphered as far as it goes as 9.5.13 or 18.?.? and probably as 9.5.13.?.?. 


Date 17. 

In the same Peabody Museum photograph (No. 385), as Dates 15 and 
16, in fact directly above Date 16, as though it began the step just above 
that on which Date 16 was inscribed, is shown a single block of stone, again 
89 cm. long, presenting the first two glyph-blocks and part of the third of an 
Initial Series. (See Gordon, 1902, plate 12, r, third block.) The Initial 
Series introducing glyph appears at a, the cycles and katuns at Ba and Bb 
respectively. The cycle coefficient is effaced, but can doubtless be restored 
asg. The katun coefficient is clearly 5, with an ornamental inner line. { 
The tun coefficient, ca, was above 5, but is too effaced to decipher. 
The fracture comes about halfway through the tun-sign. ‘The date so 
far as deciphered reads 9.5.?.?.?. 

In this Peabody Museum photograph these three Initial Series (Dates 
15, 16, and 17) are shown one above the other, as though they occurred on 
three successive steps of the stairway. The same photograph also shows 
that they came from the left-hand side of the stairway; and since they are 
Initial Series, it seems probable that they began the inscriptions on three 
successive steps like Dates 1, 3, and 5 in section ce below. Dates 15, 16, and 
17, moreover, show close stylistic affinities with Dates 1, 3, 5, 18, 19, and 20, 
and for this reason, as well as upon chronologic grounds, they all probably 
came from the same part of the stairway. 










250 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Date 18. 







Date 18 occurs on a single block, which shows the first two @Q09— 
glyph-blocks of an Initial Series, the introducing glyph being at a 8 
and the cycles and katuns at B. (See Gordon, 1902, plate 12, R, 
fourth block.) The cycle coefficient, Ba, is 9 and the katun coefficient, Bd, 
is 5. The block ends after the katuns. 


DaTE 19. 


Date 19 occurs on a single block 58 cm. long, presenting the Initial 
Series introducing glyph at a, and 9 cycles at Ba. The break occurs in the 
middle of the second glyph-block between the cycles and the katuns; the 
latter are missing. There is another stone, which came from nearby (Gordon, 
1902, plate 12, Q, fourth block) which shows katuns and tuns in two different 
glyph-blocks. The a # katun coefficient is § or under, and the tun 
coefficient 6, 7, or 8. EM Soy Th style of the glyphs with bar-and-dot 
coefficients above strongly resembles the style of the glyphs and 
coefficients in Dates 1, 3, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. But of these nine 
Initial Series the only ones without their corresponding katun-glyphs are 
Dates 19 and 20. It isnot improbable, therefore, that this block may join the 
block on which Date 1g starts, and may declare its katuns and tuns. If so, 
the best reading would appear to be 9.5.6.?.?. 

That this block is more likely to have been part of Date 19 than Date 
20 seems probable from the fact that the cycle-sign is missing from Date 20, 
and if this block should record its corresponding katuns and tuns, it is neces- 
sary to assume that the corresponding cycle-sign was Peracden on a very 
narrow piec® <ofténe? perhaps not more than 18 cm. wide, which would 
have been, contisry-to. the-usual practice of using fairly long blocks of stone 
in the stairway. 

Date 20. 


Date 20 occurs on a block 43 cm. long. It presents only the Initial 
Series introducing glyph and the cycle coefficient, which is 9. ‘The cycle- 
sign is missing. ‘The variable element of the Initial Series introducing glyph 
is the kin-sign, which is also the corresponding element in the Initial Series 
introducing glyph of Date 28. Dates 15 to 20 inclusive are early, perhaps 
allin Katun 5. All six were probably from the left ends of the steps on which 
they were inscribed, and, as will be shown later, all six probably came from 
steps immediately above those now in situ, 1. e., from section ex, figure 37. 


Date 21. 


Date 21 has already been noted in the discussion of Date 15 (plate 26, c). 
It occurs on a block incorrectly shown in a Peabody Museum photograph 
(No. 385) as standing between the two blocks of Date 15. The first glyph 
is the lahuntun-sign, followed by the date 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu. (See figure 38, 7.) 
The lahuntun-sign fixes this date as ending some even half-katun of the 








PLATE 26 







Rt 


4 Ras 





Hieroglyphic stairway on the west side of mound 26. Date1. Drawn from the original. 





Re eee 
roo OMG | 





Hieroglyphic stairway on the west side of mound 26. Fragmentary dates: (d) date 25, (e) date 26, and (f) date 27, Drawn from the originals. 





2 
Hieroglyphic steps on the south side of mound 2. Drawn from the original. 


h 


Altar N’ Front and sides. Drawn from the original. 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 257 


Long Count, and by referring to Goodman’s tables it will be found that the 
only place in Cycle 9 where 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu stood at the end of a lahuntun 
was 9.13.10.0.0. The date 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu, moreover, can not end a 
lahuntun elsewhere in Maya chronology until after a lapse of nearly 19,000 
years either before or after 9.13.10.0.0, which may therefore be accepted 
as its corresponding Initial Series. 


Dates 22 anp 23. 


Dates 22 and 23, with the number connecting them, constitute a Second- 
ary Series. (See figure 40, and Gordon, 1902, plate 12, F, first and second 
blocks.) ‘These dates are presented upon two consecutive stones, and from 
a historical point of view, one of them, Date 23, is possibly the most impor- 
tant in the entire range of the Copan inscriptions, giving, as it does, a 
chronological point of contact with another Maya city. 











Fic. 40.—Dates 22 and 23 from the Hieroglyphic Stairway. 


This series opens with the glyph, aa, usually introducing Secondary 
Series (see figure 40), which is followed by 11.14.6 in ab-Bb. In ca is a sign 
of unknown meaning, usually associated with the Secondary Series, and in 
cb the day, 11 Ahau, and finally in pa is an ending-sign with the sign in ca 
repeated. Following the precedent established in Dates 12 and 13, where 
the day 12 Oc was repeated to show the starting-point of the count, it seems 
probable that 11 Ahau is recorded here to show that 11.14.6 is to be counted 
therefrom. If this is done the day reached will be found to be 6 Cimi, which 
is actually recorded in the next glyph but one after 11 Ahau. (See bd, 
figure 40.) Following 6 Cimi, at £, is 4 Tzec, which it is reasonable to con- 
clude is the month corresponding to this day. Now, counting our Secondary 
Series 11.14.6 back from 6 Cimi 4 Tzec, the starting-point of our count will 
be found to have been 11 Ahau 18 Zac. We therefore have recorded here a 
number, 11.14.6, which, if counted forward from 11 Ahau 18 Zac, will reach 
6 Cimi 4 Tzec. 

In the majority of such cases, the count either starts from or reaches 
a tun-ending in Maya chronology, and since 11 Ahau 18 Zac is the only one 
of these two dates which could possibly end an even tun, it is reasonable 
to assume that it probably ends some period of the Long Count. Referring 
to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that the only tun in Cycle 9 ending 
on the date 11 Ahau 18 Zac is the hotun-ending 9.14.15.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Zac, 
or indeed for about 950 years either before or after 9.14.15.0.0. It 1s highly 
probable, therefore, that this hotun-ending is the starting-point of the 


258 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


count. If this is true, the terminal date, 6 Cimi 4 Tzec, can be shown by 
calculation to have been 9.15.6.14.6 6 Cimi 4 Tzec, as follows: 


Date 22 9.14.15. 0.0 11 Ahau 18 Zac 
11.14.6 
Date.23 _9.:15:) 6.14.6 6 Cimi 4 Tzec 

The great importance of this latter date lies in the fact that it is the only 
date in the Maya inscriptions, so far as the writer knows, which appears to 
establish a direct chronological connection between two different cities. In 
addition to its occurrence here at Copan, it is found on four different monu- 
ments at the neighboring city of Quirigua, some 60 kilometers to the north 
(see platest)). | 

(1) Stela J, south side H2, G3 

(2) Stela F, west side Br1d, Arza 

(3) Stela E, west side a13b, B13a 

(4) Zoémorph G, east side Nb u. h., Na |. h. 

We have already seen that it was a general custom among the Maya 
to erect monuments at the ends of the successive hotuns in the Long Count, 
and since the same chronological system obtained throughout the entire 
southern Maya area, it follows that many cities have monuments recording 
the same hotun-endings without further evidence of direct historical con- 
nection.! But Date 23 clearly does not belong to this latter category, as it 
does not fall at the end of a hotun or any division thereof, and indeed, so far 
as its position in Maya chronology is concerned, it is quite fortuitous. Like 
our own Fourth of July or Thirtieth of May, it closes no unit of the calendar, 
and is therefore probably to be regarded as the date of some actual historical 
happening or astronomical event. 

The occurrence of such a date at two adjacent cities, moreover, strongly 
suggests that it marks an event common to the history of both; in a word, 
it is the first indication from the chronological side that more than one city 
participated in the same historical event. While the nature of the event 
corresponding with this important date yet remains to be determined, there 
are some reasons for believing that it was of greater importance to Quirigua 
than to Copan. This matter will be more fully set forth at the close of this 
discussion. (See pp. 272, 273.) 

Date 24. 

Date 24 is an Initial Series expressed by full-figure glyphs, being one of 
the only five known (p. 231, and plate 27). Gordon was the first to call 
attention to it,’ and he figures several of its glyph-blocks (1902, plate 12, k, 
blocks 1, 2 and 3; L, block 1; and 0, block 4). There are at least two others, 
however, Fragments 4 and 9, plate 27, which have not been published here- 
tofore. The eight fragments recovered are arranged as shown in plate 27, 
the only doubtful one being No. 4, the uinal-sign, which may not belong 
to this Initial Series at all. From this plate it will appear that several blocks 
are missing. ‘lo begin with, there was one block (or two) to the left of Frag- 


1 See Appendices VII and VIII. 2See Gordon, 1902, p. 184. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 259 


ment 2, upon which the Initial Series introducing glyph and the cycle 
coefficient were recorded. Fragment 2 has a part of the cycle-sign and the 
katun coefficient and sign. The period-glyph appears as an eagle which is 
overwhelming a human figure, the katun coefficient. Unfortunately the 
identity of this numeral is not as clear as it might be, except that it is 10 
more than the tun coefficient; that is, the tun and katun coefficients have 
exactly the same kind of head-dress, the only difference between the two 
numbers being that the fleshless lower jaw, present in the katun coefficient, 
is wanting in the tun coefficient. A close study of these two head-dresses 
shows that they resemble somewhat the banded head-dress, characteristic 
of the head-variant for 3; and the head and body of the katun coefficient 
show death characteristics peculiar only to the number 10. Note the 
fleshless lower jaw already mentioned, and the exposed ribs. All things con- 
sidered, the best readings for these two coefficients are 13 and 3 respectively, 
although owing to the loss of the month, and the failure to identify the day 
coefficient, exact proof thereof is not possible. 

Fragment 3 presents the tun-sign and coefficient and the uinal coefficient, 
all of which are perfectly clear. The tun-sign is represented by a grotesque 
bird with fleshless lower jaw, and head-dress composed of the normal form 
of the tun-sign clinching the identification. The tun coefficient is just like 
the katun coefficient, as already noted, except for the absence of the fleshless 
lower jaw, and the best reading, as we have already seen, is probably 3. 
The uinal coefficient most closely resembles 7; the scroll passing under the 
eye and in front of the nose appears clearly at the right edge of Fragment 3. 

The uinal-sign in Fragment 4 may not belong to this Initial Series at all. 
The toad shown is a little large as compared with the other figures in this 
date. At its right there is very clearly a beveled edge, indicating that this 
block was at the right end of a step. However, since the left edge of the next 
piece in order, Fragment 5, was similarly beveled, this latter may have been 
the first block on the next step. 

Fragment 5 has the kin-sign and coefficient. The latter resembles the 
head for the number 8 rather closely, and since the day-sign on the next 
glyph-block is surely Lamat, this reading is certain. 

Fragment 6 has the day-sign and coefficient. The former is a large 
grotesque head, at first sight quite devoid of resemblance to any of the 
known day-signs; but upon closer examination it will be noticed that the 
ear of this head is the Venus variant for Lamat.1 The day-sign coefficient, 











1 This practice is not uncommon. As the writer has explained elsewhere (Morley, 1915, pp. 23-25), every 
Maya glyph seems to have had its essential characteristic, its determining element, without which it is not. Pro- 
cesses of glyph conventionalization and concessions to harmony of design frequently eliminate one element or another, 
but the essential characteristic is always retained. It isthei1reducible minimum without which the sign loses its dis- 
tinctivemeaning. Thusinthe Initial Series on Structure 1 at Quirigua, the month-sign of the terminal date appears as 
the head-dress of a grotesque head. Again, in the Initial Series on Stela D, also at Quirigua, the essential charac- 
teristic of the day-sign is applied to the cheek of a gorgeously panoplied human figure, and it is almost lost sight of 
amidst the splendor of the head-dress. Here at Copan on Altar T the outline of the day-sign for Caban is changed 
to resemble the profile of an animal head which is attached to an animal body, without at all changing the signifi- 
cance of the glyph, which records simply the day 4 Caban, the 4 being expressed by 4 dots in the head-dress just 
above the head. See also the month-sign on Stela D. This practice is familiar and seems to have been particu- 
larly common at Copan and Quirigua. (See Morley, 1915, figure 11 and pp. 24, 25.) 


260 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


however, is not so easily deciphered. The head of the human figure record- 
ing this number is normal, but is somewhat different from the head for 8 in 
Fragment 5. It seems to be more like the head of an old man, whereas the 
head for 8 is more youthful, showing none of the lines of age. The best 
readings are 1, 12, and 4 in this order, although several other values, namely, 
2 and 11, must be admitted as possibilities.!. Part of Glyph F, the seventh 
glyph of the Supplementary Series, counting from the right, is at the right 
side of Fragment 7, and the rest of it is on Fragment 8. 

Fragment 9 has Glyph C, the fourth of the Supplementary Series.” The 
rest of the text, including the month-sign of the Initial Series, is missing. 

The Peabody Museum photograph, No. 378, shows a fragment, which 
almost certainly must have been a part of Date 24. The single glyph-block 
preserved shows two human figures facing each other as in the other glyph- 
blocks of this date. 

Assembling the preceding values and selecting the best reading in each 
case, we will have the following Initial Series number: 9.13.3.7.8; and re- 
ferring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that this corresponds to the 
date 1 Lamat 1 Chen. 


Fragment 1 Initial Series introducing glyph 
Fragments 1 and 2 9 cycles 

Fragment 2 13 katuns 

Fragment 3 3 tuns 

Fragments 3 and 4 7 uinals 

Fragment 5 8 kins 

Fragment 6 1 Lamat 

Missing 1 Chen 


If the uinal coefficient is either 1, 2, 4, 7, 8,9, 11, or 12, and the day coeffi- 
cient either I, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, or 12, which would seem to comprise all the 
values even remotely possible for either of them, there will be found to have 
been only four places in Tun 3 of Katun 13 of cycle gwhere these conditions fit: 

9.15.3.1:8. sell veamaterean 
9.13.3-7-8 1 Lamat 1 Chen 
9.13.3.8.8 8 Lamat 1 Yax 
9.13.3.9.8 2 Lamat 1 Zac 

But of these, the first and the last two may probably be eliminated, the 
first because the uinal coefficient does not resemble any known forms for 1; 
the third because the uinal and day coefficients are not alike and do not 
resemble the kin coefficient in Fragment 5, which is 8; and the fourth because 
the uinal coefficient does not resemble any known forms for 9. And this 
leaves the second 9.13.3.7.8 1 Lamat 1 Chen as the most probable reading 
for this date, although it is by no means certain. If the block presenting 
the month-glyph should be discovered, this uncertainty would disappear. 





1 It is necessary to include 2 and 11 here, since the head-variants for these numbers have not been identified 
yet, and either might be the day coefhcient here. 

2 This last sign is clearly Glyph C of the Supplementary Series. (See Morley, 1916, pp. 376-381.) The 
month-sign was the fourth glyph after this, the variable Glyph X, Glyph B, and Glyph A intervening. There are 
at least three fragments missing after Glyph C, or perhaps even four. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 261 


The glyphs of Date 24 are among the most beautifully executed in the 
whole range of the Maya writing. The adaptation of the design to the 
space available in each glyph-block is masterly, and shows a grasp of the 
principles of composition equaled by few other peoples. Holmes, of the 
United States National Museum, regards the arrangement of the two figures 
in Fragment 5 as one of the most successful compositions ever achieved. 


Date 25. 


We come next to three fragmentary Initial Series, Dates 25, 26, and 27, 
the Initial Series introducing glyphs of which are missing. These are very 
different in style and arrangement from Dates 1, 3, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 
20. Each of the periods occupies a full glyph-block and the coefficients 
appear at the left instead of above. More important still, however, is the 
fact that the date of the only one that can be deciphered is late, which tends 
to place all three of them in the later group with Dates Io, ri, 12, 13, 21, 22, 
23, and 24. 

Gordon (1902, plate 13, Pp) figures the first block. (See also plate 26, d.) 
This records 9 cycles and 14 katuns. ‘The left end with the Initial Series 
introducing glyph is missing. It shows a fracture, indicating that the 
Initial Series introducing glyph, or at least part of it, was originally recorded 
on this block. The other end, on the contrary, has been dressed smooth, 
so that it would fit closely against the next adjoining stone. ‘The joint at 
this end falls in the katun-sign, about two-thirds of which, including its 
coefficient, are on this stone. This piece, now in the Peabody Museum, is 
635 mm. long and 267 mm. high. (Catalogue No. C 862.) (See plate 26, d.) 

During the writer’s visit to Copan in 1915, he succeeded in finding the 
block which in all probability came next in the stairway. Both ends are 
dressed smooth, so that it would fit closely against the next adjoining blocks. 
It is 927 mm. long and 279 mm. high. The stone begins with the right third 
of a glyph-block, the lower right-hand corner of which shows the same -=p 
design as the lower right-hand corner of the cycle-sign on the preceding 
stone. Next comes 10 tuns and to uinals and 12 o1 17 kins, the end of 
the block falling at the right of the second bar, hence the possibility of 
another bar having been recorded upon the next stone. 

As just noted, the cycle-sign has this same treatment in its lower right- 
hand corner. (See plate 26,d.) Further, the coefficients on each block are 
at the left instead of above, and in both they are ba1-and-dot numerals; 
and finally, and most important of all, the right third of the glyph-block, 
which begins the stone found in 1915, if added to the block which is in the 
Peabody Museum, gives a glyph-block of the same width as the others on 
both pieces. 

The glyph-blocks on both pieces are exactly the same height and width, 
and when the two stones are joined, the katun-sign and coefficient are found 
to be the same width as the others. See measurements at top of page 262. 


262 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 











Cycle-sign and | Katun-signand | Tun-sign and | Uinal-sign and | Max. difference 

coefhcient. coefhcient. coefficient. coefficient. between stones. 
mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. 
Height of glyph-block.. .. 264 266 266 272 8 
Width of glyph block..... 343 254-+095 or 349 330 330 19 








The above maximum differences are so slight as to be negligible, and in all 
probability these two stones fit together and record one of the two follow- 
ing Initial Series, depending upon whether the kin coefficient is 12 or 17, 
9.14.10.10.12 9 Eb 10 Tzec or 9.14.10.10.17 1 Caban 15 Tzec, as follows: 


First block A (Initial Series introducing glyph) missing 
B 9 cycles 

First and second blocks c 14 katuns 

Second block . D 10 tuns 
E 10 uinals 

Second and third blocks F_ 12 or 17 kins 

Fourth block G (9 Eb or 1 Caban) missing 


(10 Tzec or 15 Tzec) missing 


Gordon suggests the possibility! that the first block above was followed 
by the two blocks described below as Date 26. This hypothesis necessitates 
the assumption that the right third of the katun-glyph and the tun coefficient 
were recorded on a narrow block now missing. ‘This would have been con- 
trary to the general practice in the stairway of using longer blocks whenever 
possible. Moreover, his suggestion is open to the insuperable objection 
that the glyph-blocks of Date 26 are 5 cm. higher than those of Date 2s. 
The two blocks on which the writer’s Date 26 is recorded each have a ledge 
along the bottom (see Gordon, 1902, plate 13, N, and plate 12, p, fourth 
block), the one on which Date 25 is recorded being without such a ledge. 
Gordon offers an ingenious explanation for this difference, which, however, is 
unnecessary if the above arrangement is accepted. 


DaTE 26. 


Date 26, however, is very similar in style and arrangement to Date 25. 
It has the same large head-variant period-glyphs with bar-and-dot coeffi- 
cients to the left, each period occupying an entire glyph-block. (See plate 
26,¢; also Gordon, 1902, plate 13, N, and plate 12, p, fourth block). Date 26, 
what little is left of it, is presented upon two consecutive stones and records 
? tuns 16 uinals and 5 kins. Both ends of both blocks are smoothed 
for fitting against each other and adjoining blocks, the latter now missing. 
As it stands, nothing further can be done in deciphering this Initial Series 
other than to say that the day-sign must have been Chicchan and the month 
coefficient 3, 8,13, or18. ‘There is, however, a stone in the Peabody Museum 
(see figure 41) which may record the terminal date of this Initial Series. (Cat- 
alogue No. C 858.) 





1 Gordon, 1902, p. 184. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 263 


Parts of two consecutive glyph-blocks are preserved (see figure 41), 
recording 6 Chicchan 3? ‘The break occurs just after or perhaps in the mid- 
dle of the month coefficient. Chicchan is a very 
rare day-sign, and its record here immediately 
suggests that it may be the missing terminal 
date of Date 26. Assuming for the moment 
that it is, and that the month coefficient is 3, 
and not 8, 13, or 18, we will have 9.?.?.16.5 6 
Chicchan 3? It can be found by calculation 
that there are only eight places in Cycle 9 
where such a date could have occurred, namely: 





Fic. 41.—Part of Date 26 (?) from the 
Hieroglyphic Stairway. 


g.2.19.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Kankin 9. 9. 9.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Cumhu 
g.5-11.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Pop 9.12. 1.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Tzec 
9.6. 4.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Pax g.15. 6.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Yaxkin 
9.8.16.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Zip g.18.11.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Chen 


All of these lie within the extremes of dates recorded elsewhere on the 
stairway, except the first and last. Of the remaining six, all but the last 
can probably be eliminated on stylistic grounds, the style of the glyphs 
placing this Initial Series in the second or later group. There is another 
point, moreover, which tends to support this reading. The missing tun 
coefficient is probably under 11 and above 5, judging from the width of the 
uinal block following. If true, this eliminates all but the seventh read- 
ing: 9.15.6.16.5 6 Chicchan 3 Yaxkin. 

The size of the glyph-blocks rather supports the idea that this fragment 
is a part of Date 26. The glyph-blocks of Date 26 are unusually wide, 38 
cm. The width of the incomplete glyph-block in figure 41 presenting 6 
Chicchan is 35 cm., but the face on the left requires from 2 to 3 cm. to com- 
plete it. When this is supplied, the glyph-blocks in the two stones are of 
about the same widths. ‘The heights of the glyph-blocks are also the same, 
and this block has the same ledge along the bottom as the other two pieces 
of Date 26. If these three pieces fit together, the resulting date is not with- 
out interest, being only 39 days later than the important Date 23. 


Date23" 9.15.0.14. 6 .6Cimi 4 Tzec 
1.19 
Date 26 9.15.6.16. 5 6 Chicchan 3 Yaxkin 


Again, this same month-glyph, 3 Yaxkin, is recorded to the left of the 
crouching figure, which has the Initial Series introducing glyph of Date 28 
following it. (See Gordon 1902 plate 12, k, first, second, and third blocks.) 
Possibly this may be a repetition of Date 26 or vice versa, as seen between 
Dates 2 and 3, or 4 and 5, for example. ‘he chief objection to this reading 
is the fact that the head in the left half of this glyph-block (see figure 41) 
bears no resemblance to the last glyph of the Supplementary Series, as it 
probably would if these pieces belong to the same date. Although this 
assemblage is doubtful, it may well be that these several fragments originally 
fitted together, and, if so, the reading suggested is possibly correct. 


264 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Date 27. 

Date 27 is even more fragmentary than Date 26. It is similar in style 
and arrangement to Dates 25 and 26. Only one stone of it has been found, 
which shows 5 kins 7 Caban. (See plate 26, f, and Gordon, 1902, plate 12, a, 
sixth block.) However, since the day-sign is Caban, the kin coefficient 
must have been 17, that is two more bars and two dots to the left of the one 
on this block. 

It might be objected that since the Initial Series introducing glyphs are 
missing in Dates 25, 26, and 27, it is not safe to regard them as Initial Series. 
This objection, however, can not be sustained. If the periods, particularly 
in Dates 25 and 26, are not parts of Initial Series, the only other kind of count 
they could have belonged to is a Secondary Series. But Secondary Series 
are always presented as ascending, not descending, series, as in these dates; 
that is, in reading from left to right and top to bottom, the kins are recorded 
first, then the uinals, then the tuns, etc., the orders increasing from left to 
right.! The order in Initial Series, on the other hand, is just the reverse, 
namely, the same as in Dates 25 and 26 and probably in Date 27 also. It is 
therefore certain that Dates 25, 26, and probably 27 are parts of Initial 
Series and not parts of Secondary Series. 


Date 28. 

Gordon figures an Initial Series introducing glyph (1902 plate 12, kg, third 
block) which he states came from higher up the slope than the topmost step 
of section fg, figure 37. Consequently its corresponding Initial Series must 
have been on a higher step than the step upon which dates 11, 12, 13, and 
14 were recorded. 

The style of the glyph is late. The tun element is of the late form. 
The variable central element is a kin-sign. This glyph occurs 
just to the right of one of the crouching horizontal figures, 7. ¢., 
in the same relative positions as Dates Io and 11. It is not 
impossible that this introducing glyph may have belonged with Date 26 or 27. 
It could not have belonged with Date 25, as the left side of this latter block, 
preserved in the Peabody Museum, shows a fractured surface, not dressed. 

Numerous other fragmentary dates are scattered all over the court in 
front of Mound 26, the wreckage of the steps in sections ex and yd, figure 37. 
Little or nothing can be done with these. In some cases the days are n iss- 
ing, in others the months. An example of this kind occurs on a fragment 
figured by Gordon in his monograph on the stairway. (See Gordon, 1902, 
plate 12, L, sixth block.) This piece shows a part of the last glyph of the 
Supplementary Series, followed by the month 3 Mol. The most probable 
place for this to have occurred in Cycle 9, since it here ends a lahuntun, is 
9.15.10.0.0 3 Ahau3 Mol. Sucha reading, though likely, can not be proved. 

Another interesting date is part of a Secondary Series (see Gordon, 1902, 
plate 13, D), the kins of which are missing. The first piece begins with 4 or 








1For a discussion of this point, see Morley, 1915, pp. 128, 129. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 265 


7 uinals and then follow 15 tuns, 1 katun, and then in the next glyph but one, 
which is also the last, the day 7 Lamat. ‘The day-sign is expressed by the 
Venus variant, shown as the full Venus sign Other fragmentary 
dates occur here and there, but such readings as might be suggested are 
purely speculative. Long-continued work on the GE spot would undoubt- 
edly result in the fitting together of some of these fragmentary dates, but 
anything like a complete restoration of the stairway now appears impossible, 
first because there seems to have been no regular sequence in the order of 
the glyphs after the Supplementary Series; secondly, because so many of the 
joints between the stones fall in the inter-glyph spaces. 

Even an incomplete study of the fragments of this truly remarkable 
inscription, however, yields interesting results. Thus, for example, it is 
evident that artistic considerations weighed heavily in glyphic delineation 
here. Old practices and conventions were discarded in the effort to elimi- 
nate repetition and avoid monotony. On a block in the Peabody Museum 
already described in connection with Date 26 (see figure 41), the coefficient 
3 is shown with two decorative elements on either side of the central dot 
OMORO , a unique example of its kind in the entire range of the Maya writ- 
ing. Again, in the day coefficient of Date 27 (see plate 26, f) the number 7 
is shown as two dots and one bar, but with two decorative elements flanking 
the dots, instead of one standing between, as in every other example of this 
number FS00e - These and other oddities of glyph delineation might be 
pointed out. They probably resulted from the desire to escape 
from monotony in the treatment of numerical elements, which in turn was 
prompted by esthetic considerations. 

Before attempting to analyze the possible significance of the several dates 
deciphered above, let us first tabulate them (see page 266). The dates on the 
steps in situ, ce, figure 37, are given first, Nos. 1 to 10 inclusive. Then follow 
the dates on the steps in sequence but not 7m situ, fg (1. ¢., xy), figure 37, Nos. 
11 to 14, inclusive. Next come the dates on disconnected fragments lettered 
as a and JB, those lettered a being from section ex, figure 37, and those 
lettered b being from section yd, figure 37, 7. ¢., from toward the top of the 
stairway. 





CLASSIFICATION OF THE DaTEs. 


An examination of the following table discloses at the outset that we have 
here two entirely different groups of dates, one early, the other late. The 
first group is composed of Dates 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, and 18, all of 
which are in the Early Period; and the second, of Dates 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 
14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, all of which are in the Middle and Great 
Periods. Of the five remaining dates yet to be deciphered, three, Nos. 6, 
19, and 20, on stylistic grounds doubtless belong to the early group, and 
two, Nos. 27 and 28, to the late group. 


266 


THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


SUMMARY OF DaTEs ON THE HIEROGLYPHIC STAIRWAY. 


Steps im situ. 


Date- 1 Step D Initial Series 9. 5.19. 3. 0 8 Ahau 3 Zotz 
Eo sbeh oslo 
2 siliy ee Pik Ab: 8 Lamat 6 Mac 
E Initial Series 9. 7. 5. 0. 8 8 Lamat 6 Mac 
ECR CD 
4 O. oa 7 ae 6 Chicchan 18 Kayab 
5 F Initial Series 9. 9.14.17. 5 6 Chicchan 18 Kayab 
6 Out hes sia 2 ? ? ? P 
7 H 6..:0. Arlo g Cauac 17 Yaxkin 
9 K 9.6. eng "9 Canae ry) ax 
7.14. 9.10 
8 9.13.18.17. 9 12 Muluc 7 Muan 
10 KandL Initial Series 9.13.18.17. 9 12 Muluc 7 Muan 
Steps in sequence but not in situ. 
Date 11 Step P Initial Series 9.15.12.10.10 100Oc3 Cumhu 
12 oe! 6.151) 5210. Tomer 2. OasiPop 
6. 5.10 f 
13 R OM aa 8 OF COPE) 7 Ahau 13 Tzec 
14 S 9.15.11.16. O 7 Ahau 13 Tzec 
Disconnected fragments. 
15 (a) Initial Series 9. 5.17.13. 7 2 Manik o Muan 
16 (a) Initial Series 9.9. 5:137° 8 Py isaer) ama 
17 (a) Initial Series 9. 5.10. ?. ? st aN get: 
18 (a) Initial Series 9. 5. f. ?. ? Prec tee 
19 (a) Initial Series 9. 5. 6. ?. ? Poh Pa aie 
20 (a) Initial oenes ho. tel gel ee 2) kre Fee 
21 (dD) 9.13.10. 0. O 7 Ahau 3 Cumhu 
22 (dD) 9.14.15. 0.0 11 Ahau 18 Zac 
li Sao 
23 (db) 9-15. Ors 6 6 Cimi 4 Tzec 
24 (b) Initial Series 9.13. 3. 7. 8 1 Lamat 6 Chen 
26 (dD) Initial Series 9.14.10.10.12 9 Eb 10 Tzec 
26 (dD) Initial Series 9.15. 6.16. 5 6 Chicchan 3 Yaxkin 
27 (dD) Initial Series 9. ?. ?. 2.17 7: Cabanas eet 
28 (Db) Initial Series 9. f. ?. ?. ? t ? net 


Tue Earrty Group. 

Confining our attention at present to the first group, it will be seen that 
Nos. 15, 16, 17, and 18, which were found on disconnected fragments at the 
base of the stairway, are close in point of time to the dates zm situ: Nos. 1, 2, 
3,4,5,7,and9. ‘The first four (and possibly No. 19) are in Katun 5, and the 
last seven begin at the close of Katun 5 (Date 1) and come down to the close 
of Katun 9 (Date 5), which is the next to last Initial Series on the stairway 
and the last in the early Period. It is probable, therefore, that Dates 15 to 
18 originally came from steps not very far above those now 1” situ, namely, 
from the lower part of section ex, figure 37. There is some evidence in 
support of this hypothesis in the Peabody Museum photographs, where 
Dates 15, 16, and 17 are shown on three different blocks of stone arranged 
one above the other, as if on three consecutive steps, Date 15 being the 
lowest, Date 16 next, and Date 17 on top. One photograph in particular, 
No. 385, taken during the course of the excavations, shows that when these 
several blocks were removed they were placed nearest the base of the stair- 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 267 


way in the court below, in fact only one step, Step N of section fg, being 
between them and the débris at the base of the stairway before the latter 
was cleared away. ‘The inference would appear to be that they had been 
removed from just above the steps now in situ and originally had come from 
very near this position; that is, they were the /eft ends of steps just above e 
in figure 37. That they were the left ends of three consecutive steps seems 
probable from the fact that the photograph shows them arranged one on top 
of another in front of the /eft balustrade, as well as the fact that all three 
begin with Initial Series introducing glyphs. 

The chronological evidence and the parallel in the presentation and style 
of these three dates when compared with Dates 1, 3, and 5, also Initial Series, 
are even more suggestive. We have seen that Dates 1, 3, and 5 occur on the 
left ends of three consecutive steps. Now, if the Peabody Museum photo- 
graph just mentioned shows the original arrangement of Dates 15, 16, and 
17, this arrangement ts identical with that of Dates 1, 3, and 5; and if the 
three former came from steps not far above the three latter, the chronologic 
sequence of the six is perfect and continuous, particularly between the first 
four, which then all fall in the same decade: 


(Date FR oar a 

Section ex, figure 37 oat 16.9 G51 9 er 
ALBIS) Qisth 7013-7 

(Date DiG.5. 1028 3:0 

Section ce, figure 37 pate oe fee On 
Date 351 § 9.0114) 12.5 


In this arrangement there is actually less than two years difference, 7.¢., 
1.7.13 (513 days), between Dates 15 and 1; and it gives rise to a continuously 
ascending series of dates, from top to bottom. 

The next dates, 18, 19, and 20, occur on three scattered blocks. It will 
be shown presently that, stylistically considered, they very closely resemble 
Dates 1, 3, 5, 15 16, and 17, so much so in fact that it seems probable they 
also must have come from the same part of the stairway. No. 18, the only 
one even partially datable, probably came from above Nos. 15, 16, and 17 
on the stairway, since it hardly seems likely that three or even one Initial 
Series occurred between dates so close together in point of time as Nos. 15 
and 1. ‘The best position for Nos. 18, 19, and 20, therefore, would appear 
to have been at the left ends of steps not far above the step on which Date 17 
was inscribed, Date 18 in particular almost certainly coming from such a 
position. 

It has just been shown that Dates 15, 16, and 17 probably came from 
immediately above the steps now in situ. We have also seen that of the 15 
steps now in situ, three consecutive ones begin with Initial Series which 








1 The tun coefficient of Date 17 is twice as thick as the katun coefficient, which is 5. If its numerical elements 
had the same width, therefore, it could not have been above 10, and the best reading is 10. 

2 The tun coefficient of Date 16 must be either 13 or 18. Two bars and three dots show on the piece preserved, 
there being the possibility of another bar on the adjoining piece, now lost. It would be more natural, however, to 
have carved the coefficient all on one block, and 13 therefore is the preferable reading. 


268 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


stand between two sets of six steps each, none of which begins with an Initial 
Series. Assuming for the moment that this establishes an approximate 
proportion of the two which will hold for the rest of the stairway, we can 
suppose twelve non-Initial Series steps went with the three steps presenting 
Dates 15, 16, and 17; and on the grounds of chronologic proximity, that all 
fifteen steps of this section probably came from just above the steps in situ, 
1.e., from the lower half of ex, figure 37. We have seen further that Dates 
18, 19, and 20 probably came from just above Dates 15, 16, and 17, and 
allowing for this trio of Initial Series steps, the same number of non-Initial 
Series steps as above, we will have another fifteen steps reaching above the 
fifteen steps containing Dates 15 to 17, as coming from the upper half of 
ex, figure 37. This makes a total of 45 steps for the dates of the early group, 
or about half the stairway. Moreover, if the proportion of steps beginning 
with Initial Series to those not beginning with Initial Series, found in the 
steps in situ at the base, obtains elsewhere on the stairway, we may conclude 
that the dates of the early group were all recorded on the lower half of the 
stairway. And further, judging from the parallel afforded by Dates 1, 3, 
and 5 in section ce, it seems not unlikely that Secondary Series at the right 
halves of the thirty steps in section ex, connected the 6 Initial Series at their 
left ends, one with another. 

In addition to the chronologic proximity and the probable positional 
proximity of these several dates, however, they present close stylistic 
affinities, which indicate that all came from the same part of the stairway, 
and that part probably the lower half. These stylistic criteria are: 

1. Treatment of the Initial Series introducing glyph.—All of the same type. Tun 
element early form, upper line curving, 1.¢., concentric with top; 
double-lined elements in the lower part; sometimes with dots above 
and below. 

2. Arrangement.—Always the same. ‘The cycles and katuns in the second 
glyph-block; the tuns and uinals in the third; the kins and day in the 
fourth. 

3. Coefficients —Always bar-and-dot numerals usually placed above the signs 
they modify. The bars are thick and frequently show an inner 
double line. 

4. Period glyphs.—The cycle-sign always the head-variant; the katun-sign 
always the normal form. The rest vary. 


In these features the glyphs of the early Initial Series differ materially 
from those of the later Initial Series (p. 270), and on stylistic grounds alone 
it is necessary to place them in a different chronologic group than that of the 
later dates. 

Summing up the evidence afforded by the presentation, style, chronology, 
and provenance of the dates of the early group, it is probable that a// of them 
came from the lower half of the stairway; and all probably are to be assigned 
to Katuns 5 tog inclusive. Finally, since not one records either a hotun o1 
tun ending like the stele, for example, it is inferable that they refer to actual 
astronomic or historic events which occurred during the Early Period. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 269 


THe Late Group. 

Comins to the later group, Dates) 10411, 32, 13, 14,21, 22,°23,'24, 25, 
and 26, and probable 27 and 28, although the latter have not yet been 
deciphered, and are assigned here only on stylistic grounds, we find the 
earliest dates of this group are on the disconnected fragments, 7. ¢., originally 
from section ex or yd, figure 37, and in all probability, as we have just seen, 
from the latter. Chronologically considered, all fall in the latter half of the 
Middle Period or at the beginning of the Great Period. It is unfortunate 
that both the reading and the provenance of what is probably the earliest 
date of the group, No. 24, should be doubtful. It is easily one of the most 
important dates on the stairway, being expressed by the very rare full- 
figure glyphs; and its unique character in this respect must have gained for 
it a corresponding position of importance. Indeed, at one time the writer 
believed it was a part of Temple 26 on top of this mound, the high sanctuary 
reached by this magnificent stairway. The glyph-blocks, however, are 
just the height of the other steps of the stairway of which it doubtless is a 
part, and he now believes it may have been the beginning of the entire 
inscription, that is, it may have stood at the left end of the topmost step. 
Almost certainly it came from the upper half of the stairway. 

The next date in point of time, No. 21, although not an Initial Series, has 
all the practical accuracy of one, being instead a lahuntun-ending which 
makes it exact within a period of some 19,000 years. It is 9.13.10.0.0 
7 Ahau 3 Cumhu, the same date as Stela J, by which time, the writer 
believes, the laying out of the terraces around the Great Plaza was completed. 

Eight years later, toward the close of Katun 13, occurs the first (or last) 
date on the stairway, namely, No. 100n the bottom step. This is the only 
date of the late group on the steps im situ, or probably indeed on the entire 
lower half of the stairway, for which reason it is all the more important. 
Being on the first step built, it probably indicates the date on which the con- 
struction of the stairway was actually started. Gordon has already sug- 
gested this (1902, p. 185), but misreads the Initial Series as 11.13.9.14.9 
12 Muluc 7 Muan instead of 9.13.18.17.9 12 Muluc 7 Muan, making a 
corresponding difference of nearly 800 years in the age of the stairway and 
assigning it to a period now known to have been long subsequent to the 
abandonment of the city. The first step actually begins with the terminal 
day of this Initial Series, 12 Muluc. 

Katun 14 is represented by two dates, Nos. 22 and 25, the former being 
the starting-point of the Secondary Series leading to the highly important 
date 9.15.6.14.6 6 Cimi 4 Tzec, of possible historical significance. ‘The three 
doubtful dates, Nos. 26, 27, and 28, may probably be referred to the early 
part of Katun 15. 

It is important to note that the three latest dates yet found on the stair- 
way, Nos. 13, 14, and 11—the last, an Initial Series 9.15.12.10.10, being 
the latest—are found in section fg, figure 37, 7. ¢., on steps in sequence but 


270 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


not in situ. It is therefore a matter of first importance to determine the 
original position of this section fg in the stairway. 

It has already been shown that the dates of the early group probably were 
inscribed on the lower half of the stairway; if this is true, section fg, figure 
37, must have come from the upper half, but if so, from what part? 

Gordon says that in its downward course the top step of this section, M, 
(g, figure 37) came to rest at a point 17 meters from the ground below, 
presumably measured on the slope.’ Section fg occupied some 5 to 6 meters 
on the slope of the original stairway, and, as we have seen, in all probability 
came from somewhere in the upper half. Its topmost step, M, therefore 
(found 17 meters above the ground) must have slipped down at least 7 or 
8 meters. That is, Step M originally came from at least 5 or 6 meters above 
the half-way point, which was itself 19 meters above the ground; conse- 
quently Step M must have slipped at least 7 or 8 meters. ‘The first date in 
this section, No. 11, on Step P, is also the latest known on the stairway. 
This fact alone may indicate that it came from near the top, but to answer 
this question it is necessary to ascertain how near the top Step M stood. 

The date on which the stairway was completed or, perhaps better, dedi- 
cated, that is, put into formal use, as will be explained later, was probably 
g.16.5.0.0, some 12 years later than Date 11; but we may doubtless suppose 
that other later dates very near the top of the stairway, and thus the last 
to be inscribed, bridged this gap. 

If the same proportion of Initial Series steps to non-Initial Series steps 
obtains for the upper half of the stairway as that suggested for the lower, 
we may perhaps say section fg, figure 37, came from the lower part of the 
upper half of the stairway, 7.¢., from position xy. Indeed, weighing all the 
evidence, how far this section chit have fallen without the blocks losing 
their relative positions, the number of Initial Series found, and finally the 
character of the dates, the writer regards it as probable that section fg 
originally stood just above the middle of the stairway. 

That the Initial Series of the later group should be classed together on 
stylistic grounds, as well as on the basis of chronologic proximity and prob- 
able proximity of position, is apparent from the following stylistic analysis 
of their glyphs: 


1. Treatment of the Initial Series introducing glyph.—All of the same type. 
Tun element late form, two main lines of tun-sign, parallel and hori- 
zontal. Single-line elements in bottom. 

2. Arrangement.—Usually the same, each period occupying a full glyph-block. 

3. Coefficients. —Usually the same, Bere and-dot numerals, rarely head-variants, 
sometimes above, sometimes to the left. 

4. Period-glyphs.—Always head-variants. 


A comparison of these characteristics with those of the glyphs of the early 
group on page 268 will show that the division into two groups on stylistic 
grounds is amply justified. 








1 Gordon, 1902, p. 154. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 271 


DaTE OF THE HIEROGLYPHIC STAIRWAY. 


It has been mentioned that 9.16.5.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Zotz was the date on which 
the Hieroglyphic Stairway was probably completed or at least formally 
dedicated. ‘The basis for this statement is the fact that Stela M, which was 
obviously correlated with its base (see plate 6), was erected on this date. 

Gordon, in his monograph on the stairway, describes this monument in 
such a way as to leave little doubt as to this correlation. 


“In line with the center of the Hieroglyphic Stairway and at a distance of 
fifteen feet [4.57 meters] in front of it stood Stela M, one of the most elaborately 
and delicately carved of all the stele at Copan. ‘This stela and its altar are so 
associated with the stairway that a description of them will be given in this con- 
nection.” 

And again: 


“The center of the stairway was located with special reference to the position 


giesteladVie =... 27? 


After Stela D (9.15.5.0.0) there is a gap of 20 years during which no large 
monuments appear to have been erected at Copan, with the possible ex- 
ception of the hieroglyphic steps on the south side of Mound 2, the date of 
which is by no means certain. (See pp. 233, 236.) 

At the end of this period of apparent sculptural inactivity, Stela M was 
erected at the base of, and apparently correlated with, the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway. It is evident from the technique of the carving of the glyphs 
and decorative elements that the stairway, regardless of the many early 
dates recorded upon it, must have been built in the Great Period, and the 
hiatus in the sequence of the dated monuments from 9.15.5.0.0 to 9.16.5.0.0 
strongly indicates that it was being built at this time. Finally, when we find 
that the monument, correlated with its base, closes this hiatus in the se- 
quence of the monuments, the inference is that the stairway was completed 
and dedicated at the same time as this monument, namely, 9.16.5.0.0. 

Owing to Gordon’s misinterpretation of Dates 10 and 11,’° he has 
been led astray in his resulting conclusions concerning the age of the Hiero- 
glyphic Stairway. To begin with, he incorrectly deciphers the important 
Date 10, which he believes was the date of the erection of the stairway,’ 
a view also shared by the writer (see p. 269). ‘This he reads as 11.13.9.14.9 
12 Muluc 7 Muan, a highly improbable, if not indeed an impossible date 
from a historical point of view. As already pointed out (p. 250, note 1), no 
other Cycle 11 Initial Series is known in the Old Empire; indeed, the read- 
ing he suggests is some 700 years later than the latest known date at Copan, 
and some 600 years later than the latest date at any other of the Old Empire 
cities. Copan was almost certainly abandoned at least 600 years before 
this date; and if the writer’s date be accepted, Stela M, instead of being 735 
years earlier than the stairway with which it is correlated, will be only 13 








1 Gordon, 1902, p. 164. ® [bid., p. 186. 
3 According to Gordon’s numeration this is Date 6. See Gordon, 1902, p. 178. 


4 See ibid., pp. 173-176. 5 See ibid., p. 185. 


272 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


years later than the stairway’s latest existing date, 7.¢., Date 11, a decid- | 
edly more natural relationship.' 

His interpretation of Date 11, moreover, carries him even farther afield. 
He offers five possible readings, between the extremes of which is the stu- 
pendous period of over 325,000 years. His nearest possible reading before 
the earliest surely deciphered date at Copan (g.2.10.0.0 on Stela 24) is more 
than 140,000 years earlier, while his nearest possible reading after the 
latest date now known (9.18.10.0.0 on Altar G,) is more than 41,000 years 
later. These values cover such vast ranges of time that they may well be 
viewed with suspicion, especially since other readings have been suggested 
which do not develop such historical improbabilities. Indeed, resting the 
case against his interpretation of these two dates on historic grounds alone, 
it is clear that they are not only extremely improbable, but actually im- 
possible. 


SUMMARY OF THE CHRONOLOGY. 


If the writer’s interpretation of this text be accepted, its chronology may 
be summarized as follows: 

Perhaps as early as 9.13.18.17.9 12 Muluc 7 Muan (Date 10) the building 
of the Hieroglyphic Stairway was either commenced or projected. At least, 
when the work was started, it was particularly desired to memorialize this 
date, which was done by making it the first Initial Series of the new inscrip- 
tion. Next the record goes back nearly 200 years earlier, 7. ¢., to Katun 5, and 
in the lower half of the stairway at least nine Initial Series treat of a number 
of events (Dates 1 tog and 15 to 20) in the early history of the city. Finally, 
after a hiatus (?)? of about 70 years, the record comes down to more recent 
matters, and in a series of a dozen or more dates (Dates 11 to 14 and 21 to 
28), of which 6 are Initial Series, it treats of events during the construction of 
the stairway. ‘This makes a total of 16 Initial Series now known for the 
entire stairway, 10 from the lower half and 6 from the upper half. It must 
be assumed, however, that a few, particularly from the upper half of the 
stairway, have been lost, mutilated beyond all recognition when the upper 
steps crashed to the bottom, but probably not more than 8 or to all told. An 
estimate of 25 Initial Series for the entire stairway appears conservative. 

It was during the period of Dates 11 to 14 and 21 to 28, perhaps in 
9.14.13.4.17, that the neighboring city of Quirigua seems to have been 
founded, and as early as 9.15.6.14.6 some event had taken place which was of 
sufficient importance to find its way into the records of both cities. We may 
perhaps venture the opinion that this event was of greater importance to the 
inhabitants of Quirigua than it was to those of Copan, since it appears four 
times at the former city as compared with but once at the latter. Some 
time toward the close of the Middle Period, Quirigua seems to have been 








‘ Gordon himself suggests that the correlation of Stela M with the stairway would tend to indicate that both 
belong to the same period, were it not for his readings of Dates 10 and 11: “From its association with the stairway, 
one would be led to suppose that this stela belonged to the same period, but it is otherwise.” (Gordon, 1902, p. 185.) 

? Ocher now missing dates may have filled this gap formerly. 


MORLEY. 


aie mo a 


en ee 


ECKERT LITHO, CO:, WASH,,D.C. 


PLATE 27 












~ 


_— se om Re —a— ee ew were nw 





PLATE 27 





te, 


We) 


Date 24. Drawn from the original. 


Hieroglyphic stairway on the west side of mound 26. 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 273 


founded, probably by emigrants from Copan, and shortly after its foundation 
it again came into contact with the mother-city in such a way as to have 
occasioned comment on the monuments of both. 

This important date will bear further elaboration. The writer has shown 
elsewhere (Morley, 1915, pp. 239, 240) that 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab 
is the earliest date at Quirigua which it is safe to regard as referring to an 
event in the history of the city.! It is, moreover, the earliest date on four 
different monuments there, Stele J, F, and E, and Zodmorph G, being re- 
corded on Stele F and E as the Initial Series. The second katun anniver- 
sary of this date, 9.16.13.4.17 8 Caban 5 Yaxkin, is also recorded as an Initial 
Series on Stela D. In short, four of the fourteen large monuments at Quiri- 
gua are clearly connected with this date, and a fifth with its second katun 














anniversary. (See the accompanying table, where X signifies the presence 

of the corresponding date to the left, on each monument.) 

| 

Date. Stela J. Stela F. | Stela E. | Zodmorph G. | Stela D. 

Retin tat 7 1t2:Cabanes Kayabs.os. ee, a0: Xx Xx x 5a PAN ee ae 
nee Nee AMARC IUS YAN ce veutctse tet [ie ete cos es - x Be (Pal ho mi cies Oa tires ae aee 
Gees oo. Ovo Akan 8 Chen so. \..0 9h. 5. ok ane, ae Re A SENG Pitre ak SRLS TBA at le cheat 
epee Getar OG Cimd £1 2e¢.. 505 ec cs x Xx x Se a est k 
Bieeio. On Os Anau 9 Mol... nice. oS. Rese Rd Be a eat) HR Sea eo eae Ugo eee 
PG o uae © LOAN eY 8 LOZ... 656k cee oes Pee Cae PLETE icine VAG IO A s/o. g suds cas ZN > ave. alchs ars 
Beto G MOC MELE A Mall 3 L1P.. sce cs. 54 bes ve e3 aes SMM A HPP PIE (Pe RT eA ce. roche wie ee ke 
Bor Oe a 2 es ee x 
Peet ee ee FMRI SPE OPY nate yi oh HAs ce. sa ctan Ls wA | Sine itie ee olde are ec ress chem eww mastered e « Xx 
eee aeace ag nhariie Combhys i... 64 icfe cg s occa] ssw sc asas pee Wes Wes a ae ee ee 
he BOISE SS ee oe en) or. [eee ad I seis 


























From this table it appears that, having started with this date, a Secondary 
Series in each case brings the count forward to the date 9.15.6.14.6 6 Cimi 
4 Tzec, which we have seen is the same as Date 23 of the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway. Thelatter mustindeed refer to an important event of ancient Maya 
history in order to have found its way into the records of both cities. But 
what was its nature? Was it some extraordinary astronomical phenomenon, 
or does it signalize some particularly vital point of historical contact be- 
tween the two cities? Since 9.14.13.4.17 is the earliest historical date at 
Quirigua, the writer has assumed it may indicate the foundation of the city. 
But if so, why should a second date, some thirteen years later, have been so 
conspicuously memorialized? As yet we can not say. Indeed, the most 
we may venture in this connection is to note the fact that it was sufficiently 
important to have been recorded at both cities. 





1 There are only two earlicr dates at Quirigua, both on Stela C, 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, and 9.1.0.0.0 6 
Ahau 13 Yaxkin. The former is certainly hypothetical, being some 3,500 years before the first histcric epoch of 
the Maya civilization. Indeed, it is nothing more than the record of the starting-point of the Maya chronological 
system, a purely hypothetical date. (See Morley, 1915, pp. 60-62.) The second date is nearly 300 years earlier 
than the earliest monument now known at Quirigua, and for this reason it can hardly refer to an event which took 
place during the occupation of the city. It is possible, on the other hand, that it refe1s to some earlier event in 
the history of the tribe or nation who built Qui1igua, which had occurred a long time pricr to the actual foundation 
of the city, and is, in fact, only 10 years older than the oldest possible date at Copan, namely 9.1.10.0.0 on 
Stela 20. 


274 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Returning to the Hieroglyphic Stairway once more, we find that we are 
nearly at the end of our decipherable dates, Dates 26 (?), 13, 14, and 11 
following 9.15.6.14.6 in less than six years. Doubtless, as already suggested, 
other dates, now missing, filled the remaining thirteen years the stairway was 
under construction. And finally, in 9.16.5.0.0 the stairway was probably 
completed and put into formal use along with Stela M, the first hotun-marker 
that had been erected for twenty years. 

The almost total destruction of this magnificent inscription constitutes 
a well-nigh irreparable loss to the student of the Maya hieroglyphic writing. 
It was an epitome of the principal events which befell one of the greatest 
Maya cities during the greatest period of the Maya civilization. Whether 
these events are of an historical nature, as we all hope, or whether they record 
the more abstract phenomena of astronomy, as yet remains in doubt. 
Judging from the tenor of the deciphered glyphs, it must be admitted that 
the second explanation appears the more likely at the present time. How- 
ever, the writer believes that while much of the data recorded in this in- 
scription, indeed in all the Maya inscriptions, must necessarily be astronomic, 
some historical residuum, however small, still awaits the decipherer, and 
that eventually this text, as well as most others, will be found to contain 
some fragment of ancient Maya history. 


TEMPLE 26. 


Provenance: On the summit of Mound 26, of the Acropolis, Main 
Structure, now entirely destroyed. (See plate 6.) 

Date: g.16.5.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Zotz? (?) 

References: Gordon, 1902, pp. 153, 154, 163, 166, 167. 


Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. I of text, p. 30 


Not a vestige, even a foundation-stone, of Temple 26 remains in situ. 
Says Gordon in this connection: 


“Tn its present condition the pyramid rises almost to a point, leaving apparently 
but little space on top for a building, but as the top has been reduced in size by 
landslides, and building stones as well as sculptures were found overlying the 
slopes, and the level ground below, there is every reason to believe that a building 
of some sort once stood there, though not a trace of it remains in position.” 


Maudslay, however, offers more positive evidence of the former existence of 
a structure on the summit of this mound, having found several beveled stones, 
so highly characteristic of Maya roof construction, lying on its slopes.’ 

There is no doubt, indeed, but that many of the elaborately sculptured 
stones found not only in the débris at the base of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, 
but also scattered in the court just in front of it, came not from the stairway 
itself, but from some construction on the summit of Mound 26. 

Gordon believes the great macaw heads (Gordon, 1902, plate 13, s, and 
pp. 18, 19) found in the court in front of, and not underneath, the débris of 








‘ For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 
2 Gordon, 1902, pp. 153, 154. 3 Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 30. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 275 


the fallen steps, were from the facade of this temple rather than from the 
stairway proper. In the same vicinity he found fragments of several pairs 
of large claws “clearly representing those of some bird of the parrot family,”’ 
and doubtless many of the other striking sculptures found at the base of the 
stairway once embellished the facade of Temple 26, which must have been 
one of the most magnificent buildings in the city. 

Our interest in Temple 26 in the present connection centers in an in- 
scription which seems to have been inscribed upon its door-jambs. Gordon 
figures one block! of this, which he says was found near the summit of the 
mound, and which he believes may have formed part of a hieroglyphic 
frieze around the temple. He also figures four other stones from the same 
inscription which are described in his monograph as “Sculptures from the 
Hieroglyphic Stairway,’” ‘Twenty-one or twenty-two fragments of this 
text are now in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge, Massachusetts; 
another piece is in the American Museum of Natural History at New York; 
and fifteen to twenty others are in the Museum of the Normal School at 
Tegucigalpa, Honduras. 

The provenance of the fragments in the Peabody Museum, as estab- 
lished by the entries in the museum accession book, is as follows: Nos. 
874 to 882, brought back by the Second Expedition, 1892-93, are from 
the eastern side of Mound 26, and Nos. 795 to 810, brought back by the 
Fourth Expedition, 1894-95, were excavated in the angle formed by the 
eastern slope of Mound 26 and the northern slope of Temple 22. Of these 
forty-three blocks in all three places, some five or six do not belong to this text. 

By referring to plate 6, it will be seen that the provenance of the two 
groups of fragments at the Peabody Museum 1s practically identical. Stones 
falling from the back wall of Temple 26, if they rolled far enough, would 
reach the angle between the substructures of Temples 26 and 22. 

What seems to have happened is this: The Second Expedition picked up 
the surface finds on the eastern slope of Mound 26, 1. ¢., Nos. 874 to 882, 
all those figured by Gordon, and later, when the angle between the sub- 
structures of Temples 26 and 22 was excavated, Nos. 795 to 810 came to 
light. 

The discovery of Nos. 874 to 882 on the eastern slope of Mound 26, and 
one of them, No. 875, from near the summit (Gordon, 1902, p. 19), proves 
that the remaining fragments Nos. 795 to 810 found buried below in the 
angle between Temples 22 and 26 originally came from ‘Temple 26 and not 
Temple 22. In plate 6 the original position of this inscription is shown as 
having been on the jambs of the west and east doorways of Temple 26, but 
owing to the total destruction of the temple, this position, though probable, 
is not certain. To begin with, the writer can not agree with Gordon that 
these blocks were originally part of a hieroglyphic frieze around the temple. 
In rors he fitted four of these stones together, and found that the inscription 








1 Gordon, 1902, plate 13, 1. This piece is now in the Peabody Museum, catalogue No. C. 875. 
2 Op. cit., plate 15. 


276 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


was apparently a vertical panel rather than a horizontal frieze. Another 
vital objection to Gordon’s view is that these stones were found only on one 
side of Temple 26. It seems certain that if this text had originally gone clear 
around the building, a few fragments at least would have been found on one 
of the other three sides.2. This same objection may be made to the writer’s 
placing glyph-panels in the doorway on the west side of the temple. His 
reason for so doing, however, will appear presently. 

In Temple 11 we have a presentation identical with that suggested here 
for Temple 26. Temple 11 faces to the north and has a corridor passing 


through the middle and emerging at the back (south). Both jambs of 
both of these doorways are inscribed with panels of four columns of glyph- 
blocks each. The panels are 71 cm. wide and at least 81 cm high. They 
were obviously sculptured after the walls were built, as the individual 
elyph-blocks sometimes extend over several different stones without any 
effort apparently having been made to make the horizontal or vertical inter- 
glyph channels coincide with the edges of the stones. This same feature is 
observed in the fragments under discussion, probably from Temple 26, and 
the parallel afforded by Temple 11 is so close that the writer believes it 
explains the original location of these blocks. (See pp. 309-310.) 

The reason for believing that the west doorway was treated in the same 
way as the east one, in spite of the fact that no inscribed blocks of this 
character have been found on the western side, is because Temple 26 faced 
west, and it is almost inconceivable that a back doorway should have had 
this more elaborate treatment than a front doorway and main entrance, 
especially one approached by such a magnificent construction as the Hiero- 
glyphic Stairway. Moreover, the parallel afforded by Temple 11 would tend 
to indicate that both doorways were similarly treated. Probably Temple 
26 fell to pieces long before the Hieroglyphic Stairway collapsed; if so, the 
blocks in the front doorway may have been literally ground to pieces when 
the tremendous amount of stone in the upper four-fifths of the stairway 
crashed to the bottom. At all events, with the limited evidence available, it 
seems not improbable that the blocks in question are fragments of glyph-panels 
which were inscribed on the jambs of the front and back doorwaysof Temple 26. 

Concerning the inscription itself little can be said. The glyphs are all 
of the full-figure variety, and judging from the fragments recovered this 
inscription must have been one of the longest of its kind ever attempted. 
Unfortunately, it is not only too fragmentary, but the signs are too unfa- 
miliar to permit even partial decipherment. 

As already mentioned, although the Peabody Museum has twenty-one 
or twenty-two pieces of this text, the writer was able to fit together only 








1 A hieroglyphic cornice originally ran all the way around Structure 1 at Quirigua, excavated by the writer in 
1912 for the School of American Archeology. (See Hewett, 1912, pp. 168, 169, and Morley, 1912, p. 7, and 1913, 
pp. 347 and 352.) In this case, however, the fragments of the cornice were found on all four sides of the temple, 
and were clearly parts of a horizontal frieze and not a vertical panel. 

2 The Peabody Museum photograph No. 293 shows blocks Nos. 874 and 875 in the Court of the Hiero- 
glyphic Stairway, but as the latter is known to have been found elsewhere (near the summit of Mound 26) the 
former also was probably not found here, but on the east side, as stated in the museum catalogue. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. PAE 


two sets of two each, Nos. 879 and 882, and Nos. 880 and 881. It is barely 
possible a few of the stones may show parts of an Initial Series, but the char- 
acters are so fragmentary that such an identification is hazardous. 

A few of the stones show that some large design surrounded the glyph- 
panels proper; several great parrot (?) claws may be distinguished on one 
or two of the blocks. This is particularly true of some of the fragments in 
the Normal School at Tegucigalpa, where parrot-like claws may be distin- 
guished. Two of the fragments at Tegucigalpa, which fit together, show the 
feet of a human figure placed 180° apart. On either side there are two 
glyph-blocks. It is unfortunate that fragments of the same inscription 
should be so widely separated as the several pieces of this mosaic, since it 
might be possible to fit others together if all were assembled. 

Gordon, who took charge of the Second Expedition after Owens’s death, 
and who was field director of the Fourth Expedition, appears to have 
brought back only the best preserved blocks, and it would seem as though 
there must be others to be found somewhere around the base of Mound 26. 
A search of the eastern slope of this Mound in 1916, however, failed to bring 
any more of them to light, and again we are left to deplore the destruction 
of another priceless text. 


STELA M. 


Provenance: In front of the middle of the base of the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway of Mound 26, of the Acropolis, Main Struc- 
ture, at the eastern end of the court of the same name. 
(See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.16.5.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Zotz.! 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 28, a. 
Gordon, 1902, plate 16, 2 and 3. 
(b) drawing: §Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 74. 

Morley, 1915, figure 68, d. 

References: Bowditch, 1910, p. ror and table 29. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 132. 
Gordon, 1896, pp. 35, 36. 
Gordon, 1902, pp. 164, 185, 186. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 55. 
Morley, 1915, pp. 175, 176. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. I, p. 752. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 159, 162, and table r. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 134. 
Thomas, 1900, pp. 785, 802. 


Stela M now lies prostrate and broken in front of the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway of Mound 26, with which it was originally associated. Stephens 
describes it as “fallen and ruined”’ in his day,” and we may probably assume 
that it has been broken for at least several centuries. Gordon gives its exact 
position with reference to the stairway as “‘in line with the center of the 
stairway and 15’ [4.57 meters] in front of it.”* The flat slab on which it 
rested, as well as the oblong blocks which supported it on four sides, are in 


place. The monument is 3.04 meters high and 76 cm. wide. 





1 For other monuments recording this samc hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 
2 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 134. In Stephens’s nomenclature, Stela M is called Statue E. *Gordon, 1902, p. 164. 


278 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Underneath the monument was found a cruciform chamber, the axes 
of which are 2.95 meters long, 30 cm. wide, and 60 cm. high. The stela 
rested on a stone slab above the intersection of these axes. The north-and- 
south axis bears 20’ west of true north and the other axis is at right angles 
to it. It is apparent, therefore, that the stela faced very nearly due west, 
1.é., With its back to the Hieroglyphic Stairway. This chamber was opened 
in 1895 by the Fourth Peabody Museum Expedition and was found to con- 
tain thirty pieces of pottery of different types and workmanship (three being 
painted), a few rough pieces of jadeite, a small jar filled with black sulphide 
of mercury and covered with a shell (Spondylus calcifer), and a few fragments 
of stalactites.! The fact that this cache was found beneath Stela M makes it 
possible to refer the pieces of pottery which it contained to a period at least 
as early as the date of this monument, namely, 9.16.5.0.0. Such dated finds 
will ultimately prove of great value to the student of Maya ceramics in 
establishing the relative ages of different types. While it is not possible to 
fix the latest use of any given type found in such caches, we can fix a definite 
date before which it must have been in use. 

Several of these foundation chambers have been found under fallen 
stele here at Copan, notably under Stele 7, 1, I, M, and C, all of which con- 
tained similar objects; and it is probable that the foundations of the standing 
stele, A, B, D, F, H, J, N, and P, will yield similar deposits when excavated. 

Maler found caches of small eccentric shaped flints in the excavation 
of Stele 13 and 15 at Naranjo,’ and Gann reports an almost identical find 
of flints under Stela 1 at Benque Viejo. (See plate 1.) This valuable chro- 
nological line of evidence in the study of Maya ceramics should not be over- 
looked, and in its very nature this practice is likely to be found much more 
widely distributed than at these three sites alone. 

Returning to Stela M, its front or west face is sculptured with a human 
figure of heroic size, whose elaborate dress extends around the corners and 
completely covers the sides, as in the case of Stela D. The back has two 
columns of glyph-blocks surrounded by a beautiful design of rosettes and 
feather pendants, each column having 10 glyph-blocks or 1o+10=20 for 
the entire text. On the basis of this arrangement of the design it may be 
assigned to Class 6. he inscription commences with an Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph in a1 followed by an Initial Series in Bi-a3a._ This very clearly 
records the hotun-ending 9.16.5.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Zotz, as follows: 


AI Initial Series introducing glyph 
Bid 9 cycles 

Bib ~—- 16 katuns 

A2a 5 tuns 

A2b Oo uinals 

B2a o kins 

B2b 8 Ahau 


A3a 8 Zotz 
It will be noted that the month of the Initial Series terminal date ‘‘8 
Zotz’ follows immediately after the day in B2b instead of in the usual 














1 Gordon, 1896, pp. 35, 36. 2 Maler, 19084, pp. 97, 100, 101, and figure 19. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 279 


position, B4a after Glyph A, of the Supplementary Series. No reason, 
however, can be advanced to explain this reversal of the usual practice. 
At B7b u. h. “2 tuns” appear to be recorded and at aoa u.h., 1, 2, or 
3 tuns. At Bsb the day of the Initial Series terminal date “8 Ahau’”’ is 
repeated, followed by another tun-sign. The last two glyph-blocks are 
completely effaced. As already explained, Stela M was probably erected to 
commemorate the hotun-ending on which the Hieroglyphic Stairway was 
completed or dedicated. 


STELA N. 


Provenance: On the southern side of the Court of the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway just in front of the stairway leading to 
Temple 11 of the Acropolis, Main Structure. (See 
plate 6.) 
Date: g.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip.! 
Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 76, 78, 80, 81. 
j Spinden, 1913, plate 19, 4 (front only). 
(b) drawing: figure 42. 
Gordon, 1902, figures 23, 24 (hier. ped. only). 
Maudslay, ibid, plates 77, 79, 82, 83, a (hier. ped. only). 
Morley, 1915, plate 26 and figure 58. r 
Stephens, 1841, frontispiece to vol. 1 and opposite p. 138. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 101, 102, 186, and table 29. ; 
Galindo 1834, Appendix XI, p. 597. 
Goodman, 1897, pp. 132, 133. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 35. 
Gordon, 1902, pp. 171, 181-185. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 55-57. 
Morley, 1915, pp. 248, 249. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, p. 756. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 157, 159, 162, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, pp. 136-138. 
Thomas, 1900, pp. 786, 787, 802. 


Stela N stands at the southern side of the Court of the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway, in front of the middle of the stairway leading to Temple 11. 
(See plate 6.) It is 3.5 meters high, 1.27 meters wide, and faces both north 
and south,? there being a human figure of heroic size on each of these faces.* 
There is a single column of 20 glyph-blocks on each of the narrow faces, 
making a total of 40 for the entire stela. Around the base of the monument 
there is a pedestal of four stones, each of which is inscribed with 8 glyphs, 
32 in all. These, combined with the 40 on the stela proper, make a total of 
40+32=72 for the entire text. 








1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 

2 Three other monuments at Copan besides Stela N face in two directions, 7. ¢., have human figures on two 
opposite faces, namely, Stela 3, 5, and C. Stela C and 5 face east and west, and Stel N and 3 north and south. 
All four belong to Class 5 on the basis of this arrangement of their designs. 

3 Stephens, who gives drawings of both these figures, falls into a curious error in assigning them to two different 
stele. The figure facing the court (7. ¢., north) he calls the front of a Stela D, which he locates a short distance 
south of Stela M on the eastern side of the court. The other figure facing the mound (i. ¢., south), which he calls 
C, he properly locat.s in the position of Stela N, and even refers to it in his description as the back. This con 
fusion doubtless arose through a mistake in his field-notes, so that instead of having the two figures of one monu- 
ment at C (i.¢., Stela N) he has two monuments at D and C. A comparison of the frontispiece of Stephens, 1841, 
vol. 1, and the plate fronting p. 138 with Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 77 and 82 respectively, shows this 
error. See also Stephens, vol. 1, pp. 136-138, and his map facing p. 133, where he gives the height of Stela N as 
3.96 meters and the width as 1.22 meters as compared with Maudslay’s measurements of 3.35 meters high and 
1.27 meters wide. 


280 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The inscription on Stela N opens at the top of the east side with an Initial 
Series introducing glyph at a1 followed by an Initial Series at a2—a7, Als. 
This records the date 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Zip, although in order to use the 
Initial Series number as it stands it 1s necessary to change the month coef- 
ficient in ais from 8 to 3: 


AI Initial Series introducing glyph 
A2 9 cycles 

A3 16 katuns 

A4 Io tuns 

As © uinals 

A6 o kins 

A7 1 Ahau 

AIS atZap 


This error in the month coefficient, if error it is, is difficult to explain. 
At first sight it would appear as though the bar might be ornamental, mak- 
ing the coefficient 3 instead of 8, but a close examination of the original 
shows that such ts not the case. 

We have, then, an error on the part of the ancient sculptors, for the 
Initial Series number recorded, “9.16.10.0.0,”’ will not lead to the terminal 
date recorded, “1 Ahau 8 Zip,” and one or the other, therefore, must be wrong. 

The terminal date recorded, 1 Ahau 8 Zip, occurred in Cycle 9 nearest the 
Initial Series number recorded, 9.16.10.0.0, at 9.16.4.17.0, but this is not at 
the end of a hotun. Moreover, its acceptance involves two extensive cor- 
rections in the original instead of one if we accept the Initial Series number 
as correct and the terminal date as wrong, namely, changing the two bars of 
the tun coefficient to four dots, and the zero of the uinal coefficient to three 
bars and two dots. For this reason, and also because of the fact that 
9.16.10.0.0 is a hotun-ending, it is more than probable that the error here is 
in the month coefficient Ais, which should be 3 instead of 8, which makes 
Stela N a regular hotun-marker, as the other would not. Finally, the 
lahuntun-sign itself is possibly recorded at B1. 

Errors in the originals are so rare that it is only in such self-evident cases 
as the above that we should permit ourselves to make corrections. In this 
case, however, the number recorded will not lead to the date recorded, and 
it is necessary to presuppose an error somewhere. ‘The correction suggested 
not only requires less change in the original than any other to make the 
record correct, but it is strongly indicated by internal evidence in the text 
itself. We may therefore accept with little hesitation 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 
3 Zip as the date of Stela N. 

Attention should be called to the unusual form of the month-sign in ais. 
Only two other examples of this variant for Zip are known, both of which 
are also here at Copan.’ Indeed, the writer has suggested elsewhere (foot- 
note I, p. 67) that all three of these monuments may be from the hand of 











1 The original incorrectly has 8. 

2 a2, Altar L, and vy, on the reviewing-stand in the Western Court. It is unfoitunate that in both these cases 
the calculations are not certain, although the readings suggested on pp. 290 and 323 respectively are probably 
correct. The practically certain identification of the month-sign on Stela N as Zip, and its close resemblance to 
these other two examples, tends to confirm these other 1eadings. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 281 


the same sculptor; that this particular variant for Zip may be due to the 
personal equation of a single individual. The. form of Glyph A of the 
Supplementary Series used here is also unusual, being found in only 
two other texts, so far as the writer knows.! There are no other 
decipherable glyphs on the eastern side. 

The western side of Stela N has one of the most remarkable Second- 
ary Series known, consisting of six orders of periods: great-cycles, cycles, 
katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins, covering a range of over a hundred thousand 
years. Indeed, there are only two other monuments known—-Stela 10 at 
Tikal and the tablet from the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque— 
which show numbers involving the use of six or more orders of time-periods.? 
These three numbers have such an important bearing on the question of how 
many cycles make a great-cycle in the inscriptions that the writer has 
treated them at considerable length elsewhere,’ and all that need be repeated 
here is the general conclusion reached there, namely, that, as in the case of 
all other Maya time-periods except the uinal,* it took twenty of one order to 














1Stela A here at Copan and Slab 6 of the Hieroglyphic Stairway at Naranjo. Attention has already been 
called to this irregularity on the former, p. 223, although no reason to account for it can be advanced. A repro- 
duction of the other text will be found in Maler, 1908a, plate 27, Ata. 

2 A fourth possible occurrence in the inscriptions of a number composed of more than five periods is on a 
tablet formerly in the possession of Don Secundino Orantes in the city of Chiapa, 66 cm. high and 43 cm. wide 
figured by Brinton (1895, fig. 82, and pp. 138, 139). The front of this shows the head and torso of a human figure 
in profile, facing a column of seven glyphs, all of which are destroyed save the coefficients of the first two, 9 and 12 
respectively. Could the two latter have been 9 cycles and 12 katuns of an Initial Series number? The back opens 
with a Secondary Series introducing glyph at at and apparently a Secondary Series of seven periods in B1-Aq as 
follows: 13.13.13.1.1.11.14, and the terminal date, 6 Chuen 9 Muan (?) in as, B5. There is another Secondary 
Series introducing glyph at c2, another Secondary Series number of 1.19 (?).1§ at D2, c3 and another terminal date, 
5? 10 Xul, at c3, 03. Unfortunately the drawing published by Brinton is very poor, as for example ,showing a 
uinal coefficient of 19 in D2, almost certa.nly an error, and it is impossible to connect either of these dates with 
either of the numbers recorded. The original seems to have disappeared. The drawing published by Brinton is 
in the Saville library at the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York City. 

3 This question of the exact length of the time-period next higher than the cycle, usually called the great-cycle, 
has been much discussed, and is indeed of such major import2nce that the writer has devoted a considerable sec- 
tion of his Introduction to the Study of the Maya Hieroglyphics (Morley, 1915, pp. 107-127) to its presentation. 
So far as the picture-writing manuscripts are concerned, the codices, there is no room for doubt that 20 cycles were 
required to make one great-cycle. Fo6rstemann (1906, pp. 228-233, 261-264), in his discussion of the serpent 
numbers on pp. 61, 62, 69 of the Dresden Codex, each of which is composed of six orders of time-periods, proved 
that the calculations there presented require 20 cycles to a great-cycle. His argument is so convincing, and is 
supported by the figures in the manuscript so remarkably, that in so far as the Dresden Codex is concerned the 
point has long since been generally admitted. In the inscriptions on the monuments, however, all the earlier 
writers (excepc Thomas), including Goodman, Bowditch, and Seier, have held that only 13 cycles were required 
to make one great cycle. Bowditch (1910, Appendix IX, pp. 319-321) marshals the facts in support of this view, 
to which he himself inclines, most clearly, and students are referred to his work for further information concerning 
this hypothesis. The writer, on the contrary, strongly disagrees with this view, and in the passage already cited 
(pp. 110-114) sets forth what he believes to be the true explanation of the apparently contradictory 
facts. The error seems to have arisen through mistaking the name of a cycle for its position in the great-cycle. 
There can be no doubt that the names of the cycles ran from I to 13 inclusive, a cycle 1 following immediately 
after a cycle 13. A parallel is seen in the sequence of the day coefficients, which run from 1 to 13 inclusive and 
then back to 1 again. Another parallel is afforded by the sequence of the names of the katunsin the u kahlay katunob, 
Had there been only 13 cycles in a great-cycle, moreover, the coefficient 13 never could have occurred with the 
cycle-glyph, since 13 cycles would have been recorded as 1 great-cycle instead. But several passages exist which 
show the cycle-s:gn with a coefficient above 13 but under 20. B13 on Stela N here at Copan and j11 on the west panel 
of the tablet from the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque, for example. A review of all the evidence, the writer 
believes, leads inevitably to the conclusion that there was no irregularity in the sixth term of the Maya numerical 
system, and that, like the fifth, fourth, and second, and also the seventh and the eighth, it also was composed of 20 
units of the order next lower. 

4The only place where the Maya vigesimal system of numeration breaks down is in the third place—the 
tuns—where 18 instead of 20 units of the second place are required to make one of the third. As explained else- 
where (Morley, 1915, pp. 62, 63), this was probably due to the desire to make the third term conform to the length 
of the solar year as nearly as possible. 


282 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


make one of the order next higher; hence there are 20 cycles in a great-cycle 
in the inscriptions, as well as in the codices. 

The Secondary Series recorded at B10-B14 1s composed very clearly of 
o kins, o uinals, 10 tuns, 19 katuns, 17 cycles, and 14 great-cycles, or 
14.17.19.10.0.0 in the commonly accepted notation. The first points to be 
determined in deciphering this long number are: (1) its starting-point, and 
(2) the direction of the count. In regard to the former, one fact at least 
appears reasonably certain, that the Initial Series terminal date is either the 
starting point or closing date. ‘Two conditions tend to establish this point: 
(1) the Initial Series terminal date 1 Ahau 3 Zip is the only date on the monu- 
ment; and (2) the day 1 Ahau 1s actually repeated below the last glyph of the 
number at B16 with but one glyph intervening. It seems probable, there- 
fore, that this number either stretches backward from 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip 
into the remote and doubtless, even to the Maya when they inscribed this 
text, mythological past, or that it reaches forward to an equally far distant 
and hazy future. Which did the sculptor intend here? 

With but few exceptions, the overwhelming practice in Secondary Series 
is to count the number forward from some earlier date to the contempora- 
neous date of the monument or to some date anterior to it. Therefore, if 
the usual practice obtains in the present case, 14.17.19.10.0.0 is to be counted 
forward from some date in the remote past to 9.16.10.0.0, which the writer 
believes to be the case here. The whole Maya concept of time demanded that 
they should look forward and not backward. Their time-periods were recorded 
in terms of elapsed time, like astronomical hours, and the exigencies of such a 
system kept the ancient priests continually with their backs to the past. In 
the few prophetic texts which have been found, the future date was in no case 
more than 150 years off when it was recorded, and on the other hand, several 
Secondary Series and even Initial Series and Period Ending dates are known, 
recording dates so remote that they could only have been of mythological 
or astronomical significance even when they were inscribed.’ If the over- 
whelming weight of antecedent probability counts for aught, this Secondary 
Series could only have been counted backward from 9.16.10.0.0, that is, 
forward from some date prior thereto. If this is true, as the writer believes, 
it-is obvious that this number reaches back to a date far earlier than the 
starting-point of Maya Chronology. This, however, is by no means without 
parallel elsewhere, the Initial Series on the tablet in the Temple of the 
Cross at Palenque being another case in point. 

The first question, therefore, in deciphering this date is, what was the 
number of the great-cycle in which Cycle 9 fell, and, so far as the writer 
knows, there is only one monument in the whole Maya area which indicates 
the current great-cycle of the historic period, namely, Stela 10 at Tikal. 








1 Dates of this character are the Initial Series on the Temples of the Cross, Foliated Cross, and Sun at Palenque; 
the Secondary Series on Altar 2 at Piedras Negras and on Stela N and C and Altar I’, at Copan, and the period- 
ending date on Stela C at Quirigua. In all these cases much later dates designate the times these monuments were 
severaily erected. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 283 


This point is indissolubly connected with the question of how many cycles 
formed a great-cycle, and in the passage already cited (Morley, rg1s, 
pp. 107-127) this question is discussed at considerable length. It will be 
found there that the Initial Series on Stela 10 at Tikal fixes the current cycle 
of the first historical epoch (Cycle 9) as having been Cycle 9 of Great-Cycle 
19 of Great-Great-Cycle 11, of Great-Great-Great-Cycle 1, and (possibly) 
of Great-Great-Great-Great-Cycle 1, in short, within a chronological system 
covering over five millions of years. If this is true, 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip, 
the Initial Series on Stela N is in reality 1.11.19.9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip, 
and the starting-point of the number 14.17.19.10.0.0 on Stela N can be 
shown by calculation to have been as follows: 

IhLr.11.19. 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip 

14.17.19.10.0.0 backward 

Letate 4.11.17. 00.09  T2Ahau 13 Pax 
That is, this latter date was in Great-Cycle 4 instead of Great-Cycle 19, as 
most other dates, and thus was over 100,000 years earlier than the beginning 
of the historic period.? 

The glyph following B16 is possibly a month-sign, perhaps 8 Chen, 
Yax, Zac, or Ceh. The writer, however, has been unable to connect it in any 
way with any of the foregoing calculations. 

The conclusions of the earlier writers differ so greatly from the above 
interpretation that it may be well to review them here. 

Goodman, after making the change in the month coefficient on the east 
side from 8 to 3 (already suggested) proceeds to discredit the accuracy of the 
Secondary Series at B10-B14: 

“The reckoning is not only wrong but is absurd as well. The cycles run only 
to 13,° and no such reckoning as 14.17.19.10.0.0 backward or forward from the 
initial date would reach 1 Ahau 8 Chen. But fortunately, despite all the blunder- 


ing, we can see what the intention was. 1 Ahau 8 Chen begins the 17th katun of 
the 8th cycle and thence to the initial date is just 19 katuns and to ahaus.’”! 


Goodman means here that he regards B10-B12 as a Secondary Series 
composed of o kins, 0 uinals, 10 tuns, and 19 katuns, 1. ¢. 19.10.0.0, which is 








1 The great-great-great-great-cycle glyph and coefhcient are doubtful. (See Morley 1915, pp. 125-127.) 

2 Lest such vast time conceptions arouse in the reader a feeling of disbelief in the accuracy of the conclusions 
responsible for them, the writer recommends an examination of the Initial Series of Stela ro at Tikal, where 
some five millions of years are apparently recorded. (See Morley, t915, pp. 114-127.) 

3 The writer’s dissent with this opinion has already been noted. 

4Goodman, 1897, p. 132. Goodman’s name for the period of the third place is ahau instead of tun. 
He also calls the periods of the second place chuens instead of uinals. His reasons for this nomenclature follow: 
“The ahau is a period of 360 days—the sum of the days in the eighteen regular months—and derives its name un- 
doubtedly from the fact that it always begins [7. ¢., ends] with the day Ahau”’ (1897, p. 23). This reason is un- 
sound, because of the fact that every Maya time-period above the kin, that is, the uinal, tun, katun, cycle, and 
great-cycle, etc., ended with a day Ahau; and any time-period therefore above the kin could with equal justi- 
fication be called the ahau. However, the rejection of this term rests on firm historical grounds, as Bowditch has 
very satisfactorily demonstrated (1910, pp. 276, 277). _He has shown that in the Books of Chilan Balam, native 
Maya writings of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, the term tun is repeatedly used to designate 
the 360-day period, but never the word ahau. Concerning Goodman’s use of the term chuen to designate the 
periods of the second order, he says: “TI call this period ‘chuen’ because it is commonly designated by the character 
Landa gives as the sign for that day” (1897 p. 22). While admitting this resemblance, Bowditch cites sufficient 
historical evidence to prove that the 20-day period was called uinal rather than chuen (1910, pp. 275, 276). Good- 
man’s terms for these two periods have not been adopted by later writers and, as used in this sense, may be said 
to have disappeared from the nomenclature of the science. 


284 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


to be counted backward from the Initial Series terminal date 9.16.10.0.0 
1 Ahau 3 Zip to reach the date 1 Ahau 8 Chen in Bi6-817, declared further 
by B13 to be at the end of a Katun 17. And in support of his reading it 
must be admitted that if 19.10.0.0 is counted backward from 9.16.10.0.0 
1 Ahau 3 Zip, a Katun 17 ending on the date 1 Ahau 8 Chen will be reached, 


VIZ: 
9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip 
19.10.0.0 
8.17. 0.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Chen 


Bowditch apparently follows Goodman here, though admitting at the 
same time that the unexplained error in the month coefficient and the 
presence of a glyph denoting 14 cycles’ cause great uncertainty as to the 
meaning of this text.” 

Goodman’s interpretation is open to several vital objections: 

1. To begin with, it leaves utterly unexplained glyph B14, which, so far as its 
position is concerned, follows immediately after B13 and before B15 without any 
break, and has every appearance of being a part of the same number as B13 and B15. 

2. It requires that B13 be identified as 17 katuns, whereas the hand on the 
lower part of the face almost certainly indicates that it is 17 cycles instead. More- 
over, the sign denoting katuns in B12, according to his own reading, is quite dis- 
similar to B13. If one is the katun-sign, the other, in all probability, is not. 

3. It requires, moreover, a peculiarly un-Maya arrangement of the text, one 
indeed of which they could hardly have been capable. According to his reading, 
first comes a Secondary Series of 19.10.0.0; then a period-ending, Katun 17, without 
any accompanying ending-sign, however; next a glyph with a coefficient of 14, 
which he leaves unexplained altogether; and finally (one glyph intervening), the 
date 1 Ahau 8 Chen (the month-sign being very doubtful) ending what he believes 
to be Katun 17 of Cycle 8 in B13. 


Such an interpretation does too much violence tothe original text, since, 
so far as we can judge by inspection, there is no visible reason why B13 and 
B14 are not a continuation of the same number whose lower terms are 
expressed by Bio-B12. Therefore, in spite of the fact that Goodman’s 
reading develops the rather surprising coincidence that Katun 17 of Cycle 8 
is just 19.10.0.0 prior to 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip, and that it ended on the 
date 1 Ahau 8 Chen, possibly the best reading of B16, B17, it has been rejected 
as not only at variance with the glyphs actually recorded, but as generally 
incompatible with Maya practice. Moreover, the record of the day 1 Ahau 
in B16 may well be, and probably is, simply a repetition of the day of the 
Initial Series terminal date (1 Ahau 3 Zip) to show that this date was also 
the terminal date of the above Secondary Series. And finally, the 8 Chen in 
B17 may not be a month at all, as the sign identified as Chen may possibly 
be the Cauac variant of the tun-sign. 

This whole question has been thoroughly presented elsewhere (1915, pp. 
114-127), and the reader is referred to this passage for further information 








1 This glyph, as shown by the writer (1915, p. 117), could not in any case be 14 cycles. It is probably 14 great- 
cycles, as we have already seen. 
2 Bowditch, 1910, p. 186. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 285 


on the subject. It should be noted, however, before closing its discussion 
here, that the internal evidence afforded by the glyphs of this passage, 
particularly p14 identified by the writer as the great-cycle glyph, strongly 
corroborates the conclusions set forth above. 

Thomas also rejects Goodman’s reading here. He agrees with the writer 
in believing that all the six periods recorded in B10 to B14 are parts of the 
same numerical series—14.17.19.10.0.0—and that there were 20 cycles to 
a great cycle, instead of 13, which Goodman and Bowditch allow. He, 
however, disagrees with the writer in assuming that 1 Ahau 8 Chen was the 
closing-point of the count instead of 1 Ahau 3 Zip. In this way he gets 12 
Ahau 13 Zotz as the starting-point, which he further states is “the first day of 
the sixth katun, the sixth cycle of his (Goodman’s) fifty-fifth great cycle.” 
If correct, this would make his starting-point for this Secondary Series more 
than 3,500 years later than the Initial Series of Stela N, and his terminal 
date more than 117,000 years later. Such readings as these may well be 
viewed with suspicion and constitute their own strongest refutation.! 

Seler sheds no additional light on this inscription, and indeed falls into a 
curious and unnecessary error concerning its Initial Series: 

“As here [Stela C at Copan] so also there appears to be on Stela N at Copan, 
a mistake in reckoning or in signs. The given multipliers do not lead to the 
given day 1 Ahau at the end of the Initial Series, but to the day 10 Ahau. Perhaps 
one must read in the second positions [a3], 16 X 20 X 360 (instead of 18 X 20 X 360). 


In that case the addition would result in a figure which would be the difference 
between 1 Ahau 3 Zip and the norm date 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu.’” 


Apparently Professor Seler reads the katun coefficient, his “second posi- 
tion,’ as 18 instead of 16; but suggests that a change to 16 will reach the 
terminal date as recorded. This is indeed carrying coals to Newcastle, 
since A3 is clearly already 16 and not 18 katuns, as he seems to imply in 
the above passage. 

Around the base of Stela N 
there are four bands of glyphs ar- 






(pr 
G 





ranged thus: each band hav- 
ing 8 glyph- blocks or 32 
in all, which, added to the 4 


on the monument proper, make 72 
for the entire text. These present 
two Calendar Round dates and a 
Secondary Series. (See figure 42.) 
One date begins the band of glyphs 
on the south side of the monument, 
the other begins the band on the 
east side, and the Secondary Series begins the band on the west side. ‘The 





Fic. 42.—Part of inscription on pedestal of Stela N. 





1Thomas discusses this text at some length (1900, pp. 786, 787, 794-797; and 1904, pp. 254-257), and 
although the writer can not agree with all his conclusions, it should be noted that he was the first to maintain that 
the great-cycle contained 20 and not 13 cycles. 

2Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, p. 756. 


286 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


remaining band on the north side appears to begin with the day Kan, but 
neither its coefficient nor the corresponding month-sign can be found. 

These two dates and the number are at the back of the monument, that 
is, on the two corners nearest Mound 11. This was probably due to the 
fact that as one faces the monument (7. ¢., looking south) both the east and 
west bands will appear as vertical columns. Moreover, the first glyphs in 
both, i.¢., the southernmost in each band, are alike, and different from any 
others in the text. £2 Indeed, they are probably not glyphs at all, only 
formal decorative —-| elements with which the two vertical bands of the 
inscription begin. 

Facing the monument, then, this text would appear to commence at the 
top of the eastern band, the first two glyphs of which are 6 ? 3 Yaxkin, all 
being certain but the day-sign, which is a grotesque head. (See figure 
42.) Unfortunately, each of the four day-signs possible here—Ahau, Chic- 
chan, Oc, and Men—may be represented by a grotesque head, and our 
preliminary inspection therefore gives us little help. There are no other 
calendric glyphs on this side. 

The question at once arises, what could this date have been. Filling 
in the four possible values of the day-sign, it will be found by referring to 
Goodman’s tables that the four resulting dates occurred in Cycle 9 nearest 
the date of the accompanying stela, N, as follows: 

9.15. 6:16. 46,- 6 Chicchan' 4" Yaxkin 
9.76. 0. 1.10 - 6.0c 3 Yaxkin 


9.16.13. 4.15 6 Men 3 Yaxkin 
9.17. 6. 8.0 6 Ahau 3 Yaxkin 


Since the third is nearest to the date of Stela N, a priori it would be 
considered the best of these four readings, but leaving this question unde- 
termined for the present, let us continue the examination of our text. 

Facing the monument, the right column of glyphs, the west band, would 
seem to be the next in order. This starts with the same ornamental glyph 
as the east band, and then follows a head-variant period-glyph, the tun-sign, 
with two coefficients 1, 2, or 3 to the left and 6, 7, or 8 above. (See figure 42.) 
‘he remaining glyphs in the western panel are noncalendric. 

Passing on to the south band, it will be found to begin with a date 11? 
13 Pop, the day-sign again not being clear. In Gordon’s drawing (1902, 
figure 23) this is shown as an animal’s head, while in Maudslay’s drawing 
(1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 83) the head is grotesque. The writer’s drawing of 
figure 42, shows that it is a grotesque head and may either be Chicchan, Oc, 
Men, or Ahau. ‘Taking each in turn, it will be found by referring to Good- 
man’s tables that the four dates possible here occurred in Cycle 9 nearest 
the date of Stela N, as follows: 

9.15: 4.10. 080. hl MICCUaAn oar 
R151 71300 Sei Oeagsrep 


9.16.10.16.15 11 Men 13 Pop 
9.17: 4. 280° )apAhail 14 aroun 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 287 


Again the third reading is the best, since it is less than a year later than 
the date of Stela N. 

Now, the 13 Pop of this date is just at the intersection of the south and 
west bands, that is, just where the west band passes under the south band. 
Moreover, the number mentioned above is next this glyph, and it therefore 
seems probable that it is in some way connected with this date. 

If this number connects these two dates (6 ? 3 Yaxkin and 11 ? 13 Pop), 
it is obvious that neither of its two recorded coefficients (6, 7, or 8 and 1, 2, 
or 3) can be the kin coefficient, since in counting either way from either date, 
O, 5, 10, and 15 are the only four values of the kin coefficient which will reach 
3 Yaxkin from 13 Pop or vice versa, and none of these numbers appear 
attached to this period glyph. Therefore, if this number does represent 
the distance between these two dates, it is evident that neither of the two 
coefficients present can be the kin coefficient. But we have already seen 
that in certain rare cases both coefhcient and period-glyph may be omitted 
when the value of the former is 0;! and we have also just seen that the kin 
coefficient here must be either 0, 5, 10, or 15 if this number connects these 
two dates. Therefore we may probably conclude that this number is con- 
posed of tuns and uinals but no kins, 2. ¢., its kin coefficient iso. Finally, as 
a corollary of the above conclusion, it follows that the uncertain day-signs 
in these two dates must be the same; that ts, if we supply Men as the missing 
day-sign in one date we must also use it in the other, and so on. Fortun- 
ately, both the day coefficients and the months of these two dates are ex- 
ceedingly clear, and leave no doubt as to the readings intended here. The 
first, 3 Yaxkin, is distant from the second, 13 Pop, 110 days, and the second 
from the first, 255 days. [he number at the top of the west band, therefore, 
must be either one of these two numbers plus 365 days or a multiple thereof; 
and finally, since the day-signs must be the same, the total number at the 
top of the west band must be exactly divisible by 20,” and when divided by 
13 the remainder must be either 5 or 8.° 

It can be shown by calculation that no possible combination of 6, 7, or 
8 tuns, I, 2, or 3 uinals, and o kins will give a number which will fulfill all the 
necessary conditions present here. It is evident, therefore, that 1, 2, or 3 
can not be the uinal coefficient, nor 6, 7, or 8 the tun coefficient; and yet one 
of each set of these numbers is surely recorded here. 

A few cases are known, however, where the usual positions of the 
coefficients are reversed, the coefficient of the higher period being written to 
the left of the period-glyph instead of above in the usual position.* Trying 
this new arrangement, it will be found that if 2 tuns, 6 uinals, and o kins, 
2.6.0, 1.é@., 110 +2 (365), is counted forward from 13 Pop, the month reached 








1See note I, page 203. 

2 Only when a number is exactly divisible by 20 will the same day-sign be reached in counting between two 
Maya dates. 

3These two numbers are the only ones which will reach the two day-coefficients actually recorded, 11 and 
6, viz, 5+6=11, or 8-+11 =19, which, after casting out a 13, leaves 6. 

4 See, Morley, 1915, pp. 127-129. Stela E at Quirigua and Altar U here at Copan are perhaps the best known 
examples of this inversion of the regular order. 


288 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


will be 3 Yaxkin; in other words, the tun coefficient must be 2 and the uinal 
coefficient 6. Although this proves that the date on the south band is the 
starting-point and the date on the east band the terminal date, it does not 
fix either in its proper position in the Long Count. Turning to page 286, 
where the four possible values of the former date are given, let us choose 
the third value there, because it is the nearest to the Initial Series of Stela N, 
being in fact less than a year later. If 9.16.10.16.15 11 Men 13 Pop is the 
starting-point of this count, its terminal date can be shown to have been 
9.16.13.4.15 6 Men 3 Yaxkin, as follows: 
South band, 1st and 2d glyph-blocks, 9.16.10.16.15 11 Men 13 Pop 


West band, 2d glyph-block, 2.600 
East band, 2dand3d_ glyph-blocks, 9.16.13. 4.15 6 Men 3 Yaxkin 


As will appear later, these two dates, though less than two and a half 
years apart, inclose within this brief span a date recorded more often at 
Copan than any other, namely, 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 1o Mol. Because 
of this fact and also because the latest of these dates is only a little over 
three years later than the date of Stela N, it is probable that both are cor- 
rectly deciphered as given, and the doubtful day-sign in each is Men. A 
summary of the calculations on both the stela and its pedestal follows: 

Stela N, east side a1—Az7, A1s, (1417.11.19). 9.16.10. 0. © I Anan" ip 

Stela N, west side B2—B6 I4 .17.19.10. 0. 0 backward 
(TLL1s 4).11.17. 0. 0.°6 13 Alauliageae 

Pedestal, south side, 1st and 2d glyph-blocks, 9.16.10.16.15 11 Men 13 Pop 


Pedestal, west side, 2d glyph-block, Qe Vind 
Pedestal, east side, rst and 2d glyph-blocks, 9.16.13. 4.15 6 Men3 Yaxkin 


Stela N is the last monument of the stela type at Copan which is a 
hotun-marker, and indeed the next to last stela upon which an Initial 
Series is recorded at all. “Toward the close of the Great Period there devel- 
oped everywhere a tendency toward greater brevity in recording dates, in 
consequence of which dating by Initial Series began to go out of fashion.’ 
Copan, if not the leader in this movement, was certainly one of the first 
cities at which the tendency made itself felt, and with the single exception 
of the Initial Series on Stela 4 and the incomplete Initial Series on Frag- 
ment E’, the Initial Series of Stela N is the latest here. 

Stela N is the next hotun-marker after Stela M, and while it is the 
last stela used for that purpose, the practice of marking the hotuns was by 
no means discontinued, the later hotuns being marked either by temples or by 
smaller monuments, usually of the altar type. 

The four last stele in point of time, Stele C, H, F, and 4, were not used 
to record the current hotun-endings, but to present other and less clearly 
understood calculations. 








1 The first four coeficients are supplied from the values given on Stela 10 at Tikal for the four higher time- 
periods. The first is doubtful. 

2 The original incorrectly has 8. 

3The almost complete absence of Initial Series dating in Yucatan will be taken up in Chapter V and in 


Appendix II. 





PLATE 28 


MORLEY 





Stela 22. 


b. 





Glyph panel in north doorway of east jamb of Temple 11. 


c. 








Ke 


Central figure at ““The Shrine of the Toad,’’ 


d. 


Stela M, back 


a. 


a ee 
* +o “uh Sieyet 
ie be a 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 289 


With the erection and dedication of Stela N, the Court of the Hiero- 
glyphic Stairway seems to have been completed, and the scene of building 
activity again shifted farther south to the Acropolis. The closing years 
of the city’s occupation were the most brilliant of all from an architectural 
point of view; and during the two katuns which followed Stela N, the 
Eastern and Western Courts were completed and the magnificent series of 
temples surrounding them were erected (see plate 6). 

Before proceeding with the description of the final phases of sculptural 
activity at Copan, however, it is first necessary to consider four altars of 


uncertain date found in or near the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, 
namely, Altars L, B’, C’, and D’. 


ALTAR L. 


Provenance: On the extremity of the L-shaped extension on the 
north side of Mound ro of the Acropolis, Main Struc- 
ture. (See plate 6.) 


Date: g.16.11.0.5 2 Chicchan 3 Zip (?). 
Text, drawing: figure 43. 

Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 73, D. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, table 29. 


Goodman, 1897, p. 132. 
Gordon, 1896, pp. 20, 41, 42. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 54. 


Altar L was found on the western extremity of the L-shaped extension 
on the north side of Mound ito, at the Main Structure. It is 1.09 meters 
wide (1.e., between the plain faces), 1.13 meters deep (7.¢., between the 
sculptured faces), and 67 cm. high. Maudslay states (ibid., vol. 1 of text, 
p. 54) that it is carved on one side only, a drawing of which he figures (09. 
cit., plate 73, b); but Gordon found that two of the four faces were sculptured: 


““A drawing of this side (of Altar L) is given by Maudslay on plate 73; but he 
makes no mention of the opposite side, which is more weather-wgrn, but, retains 
the outlines of a similar design only partially executed. The other twWorsiddsdand 
the top are plain, which is unusual; and it is probable that the sides. at Lett were 
to be carved.””! Parr eer 


xf a iS 


A personal examination of the original convinced the writer that as it 
stands this altar is in an unfinished state. The subject on the completed 
face is two human figures, each sitting cross-legged on two glyphs with a 
column of three glyphs between them. These figures, while they resemble 
the earliest example of this type, 7. ¢., the small figure on Stela B? (see fig. 
36), in general posture and habiliments are nearer to those on the step in 
Temple 11, and Altars Q and T, having not only the same objects in their 
hands as the latter, but also the same grotesque heads for breast-plates, 
except in the case of Altar T. This stylistic resemblance is important, since, 





1 Gordon, 1896, pp. 41, 42. 
2 All of the figures of this type are very similar. All have large turban-like head-dresses and all bear the same 


object in their extended hands. mS 


290 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


as will appear later, Temple 11 was probably dedicated in 9.16.12.5.17 and 
Altar Q probably in 9.17.5.0.0, and the similarity of Altar L to these two 
surely dated sculptures will materially help in fixing the position of its single 
Calendar Round date in the Long Count. 

On the face under discussion,' there are seven 
glyphs, three in the column between the two figures 
and two under each figure. Of these, only the first 
two in the column are decipherable. They record a 
Calendar Round date, the day of which is partially 
effaced: 2 or 3 Chicchan, Oc, or Men 3 Zip; the 


day coefficient being best at 2. (See fig. 43.) 
The month-sign is an unusual variant of 
Zip, which only occurs in two other inscriptions G& 
known, beth at Copan, and both within ro tuns 
of each other, 7. ¢., Stela N (9.16.10.0.0) and the an 
2 DDK | 





reviewing stand on the north side of the Western 
Court’ '(9.17.0:0,0)= (see, “plate/)6;), ( Thesessrarce 
month-signs all have similar subfixes Ela: which 
are entirely dissimilar to the usual Zip super- 
fix 6Tls and as suggested in footnote I on page 
OT; the three monuments on which they occur all present such 
close stylistic similarities, and, in the case of two at least, such chrono- 
logical proximity, that we are justified in assigning all three to the same 
period, if not indeed to the same sculptor. The six dates most probable here 
occurred in Cycle 9, nearest the dates of Stela N and the reviewing stand 
in the Western Court, as follows: 








(O 
Fic. 43.—Inscription on front 


of Altar L. 


9.15.18.15. 5 3 Chicchan 3 Zip 
9:16.112.0. § .2-Chicchanas/ap 
§.16.121,0;10. 5 3 Oc 3 Zap 

Olt; Aa si 92 een cig 

9.17.1 2 315) 2 Mena cip 
9.17.17. 6.15 2 Men. 3°Zip 


In all probability the day-sign is not Men; and also in the case of the last 
reading it is too late to be historically probable, and may therefore be 
eliminated. Again, only the second, third, fourth, and fifth lie near the 
dates of Temple 11 and Altar Q, the nearest monuments on stylistic grounds, 
and only the second and third are near the dates of Stela N and the review- 
ing stand in the Western Court, which have the same unusual variant of 
the Zip superfix, thus reducing the probabilities to the second and third 
readings above. : 

A careful study of what is left of the day-sign, moreover, discloses th 
presence of two sharp-pointed teeth in the upper jaw. (See fig. 43.) These 
are wanting in the three signs for Oc which Bowditch figures,” but are present 


1 The other face was never finished. 2 Bowditch, 1910, plate 5. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 291 


in the single sign for Chicchan which he gives.!| They are also present in 
the day-sign in figure 41, which we have seen (p. 263) may also be Chicchan. 
This seems to indicate that the day-sign in ai is Chicchan, and Al, A2 there- 
fore reads 2 Chicchan 3 Zip, which eliminates the third and fourth readings 
above on other grounds. This date (9.16.11.0.5), was not only exactly 1 haab 
or year of 365 days later than the Initial Series of Stela N, but also only 1.10 
(30 days) later than the date on the south band of the pedestal, which may 
account for its record here. 

In support of this reading is the additional fact that a close examination 
of the day coefficient shows that it can only be 2. The middle element is 
clearly Jonger than the dot below it. Moreover, if the space which this 
glyph-block originally occupied is carefully measured, it will be found that 
there is just room above the longer middle non-numerical element for a dot 
of the same size as the bottom one. (See figure 43, where the upper part of 
this glyph-block has been restored in dotted lines.) This makes the coeffi- 
cient 2 instead of 3,as drawn by Maudslay,? and on another ground eliminates 
the first, third and fifth values above. The writer regards it as practically 
certain that this date is 2 Chicchan 3 Zip, and as extremely probable that its 
corresponding Initial Series was 9.16.11.0.5, just 1 haab later than the Initial 
Series of Stela N. It is not far from Stela N (see plate 6), and doubtless is to 
be referred to the same period. 


AtTaARs B’ anp C’, 

Provenance: At the western end of the Court of the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway in front of Mound 7 of the Acropolis, Main 
Structure. (See plate 6.) 

Date: g.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip (?) tog.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18. 
Cumhu (?). 

Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 113, b. 

(b) drawing: plate 22, a and b. 
figure 44. 

Altars B’ and C’ seem to have been found at the western end of the Court 
of the Hieroglyphic Stairway in front of Mound 7. A photograph taken by 
the First Peabody Museum Expedition in 1891, No. 96, shows both ends of 
B’ and one end of C’ in this position and its title says “Sculptures found 
lying at eastern base of Mound 7.”’ 

Maudslay’s photograph, probably taken in 1894,’ shows both ends of B’ 
in the same place, but not the end of C’. In 1915 the writer also found both 
ends of B’ here, but the end of C’ seems to have disappeared. It is probable, 
therefore, that both of these altars originally stood in front of Mound 7 at 
the western end of the court. (See plate 6.) ‘These altars are not mono- 
lithic, but are each composed of three blocks, two ends and a middle section. 


When assembled, each was about 1.6 meters long, 46 cm. wide, and 38 cm. 





1 Bowditch, 1910, plate 5. 2 Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, pl. 73, 3. 

3 The year after Owens’s death, the Peabody Museum had no expedition in the field, 1893-1894. Maudslay, 
however, visited the site as its representative and secured molds and photographs of part of the new material 
discovered by the First and Second Expeditions, 1891-1893. Part of this material was published as plates 100- 
119 of volume 1 of the section on archeology of the Biologia Centrali-Americana. The photograph reproduced in 
plate 113, 5, showing the two ends of Altar B’, was therefore probably taken in 1894. 


292 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


high. ‘The ends are sculptured with death’s heads, two on each altar, and 
the long sides with glyphs. The tops and bottoms are plain. (See figure 
44 for the general scheme of assemblage and plate 22, a and J, for detailed 
drawings of the inscriptions.) 









Fic. 44.—Drawing showing assemblage of the several 
sections of Altar B’. 





In 1915 the writer found all three parts of Altar B’, but only the middle 
section of Altar C’. The end shown in the Peabody Museum photograph 
of 1891, a cast of which is fortunately preserved there, No. C. 2662, has 
since disappeared, the writer fears wantonly destroyed. | 

This end of the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway has suffered much 
from vandalism. Under the grateful shade of the large trees left standing 
along its southern and western sides, parties of pilgrims on their way to or 
from the famous shrine of the Black Christ at Esquipulas, Guatemala, 
tarry here for their midday meal. Fires are lighted which crack the sculp- 
tures. Idle hands hack at the carvings with machetes, and irreparable loss 
speedily follows. Another source of destruction is the use of these blocks 
for building material in the village, fortunately 2 kilometers distant, else 
nothing would have been left at the Main Structure. However, in spite 
of this distance, there was abundant evidence in 1916 that blocks had been 
broken up and taken away from this court recently. It is not surprising, 
therefore, to find that both ends of Altar C’ have disappeared. . 

As assembled in plate 22, aand b, the two middle sections are doubtfully 
placed. That shown as the middle section of Altar C’ may have been the 
middle section of Altar B’ and vice versa. Both these blocks have their ends 
dressed smooth by pecking, so that they would fit closely against the end-pieces. 

Although these altars are very similar, yet slight differences in the treat- 
ment of the death’s heads, the hair, ear-plugs, etc., prove that the two ends 
shown as belonging together in plate 22, a, are different from the death’s heads 
on the two ends of Altar C’, plate 22, b. 

In Maudslay’s photograph the left side of Altar B’ shows six glyph-blocks; 
as found in 1915 only two are left, four having been broken off since. Allow- 
ing 56 cm. for the length of this end, the same as for the other, and allowing 


ill 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 293 


48 cm. for the middle section, the total length of this altar must have been 
over I.5 meters. After the six glyphs in the Maudslay photograph is a 
vertical band. Then came the middle section with four glyph-blocks, and 
then the right end with four or six more, making 14 or 16 on a side and 2§ 
or 32 for the entire altar. 

Concerning the date of Altar B’, little can be said. One side (see plate 
22, a) opens with a Calendar Round date 10? 8 Zac? This reading, however, 
is so doubtful that it is unsafe to attempt to fix it in the Long Count. If it 
were 10 Ahau 8 Zac, a reasonable reading would be 9.18.10.0.0 10 Ahau 8 
Zac, the same date as that probably recorded upon Altar G,, but there is too 
much uncertainty here about the month-sign to accept this reading. There 
are no other decipherable glyphs on the altar. 

Altar C’, as it now stands, is fragmentary, one end being gone. The 
death’s head at the left in plate 22, b, isrestored. The glyphs are clear for the 
most part, and though a number are of familiar aspect, none are yet decipher- 
able. No trace of a date appears, and we are forced to conclude that it 
must have been recorded on the still missing right end (plate 22, dD). 

These two altars are clearly companion pieces and both doubtless 
date from the same time. ‘The writer has assigned them to the lahuntun 
9.16.10.0.0-9.17.0.0.0, on the grounds of their provenance, although at least 
one of them, B’, may be two katuns later, 7. ¢., 9.18.10.0.0. 


ALTAR D’. 


Provenance: At the western end of the Court of the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway in front of Mound 7 of the Acropolis, Main 
Structure. (See plate 6.) 

Date: 9.16.13.9.0 13 Ahau 8 Zac (?). 

Text, (a) photograph: Mauda. 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 9, b, 113, dD. 

(b) drawing: figure 45. 
Ibid., vol. 1 of text, p. 16; zbid., and vol. 1, plates 9, b, 114, a 
Reference: Ibid., vol. 1 of text, pp. 68, 69. 


This altar stands at the base of Mound 7 at the western end of the Court 
of the Hieroglyphic Stairway. It is a flat, oblong block of stone about 
2 meters long, 1 meter wide, and 30 cm. high. Over the top is stretched a 
grotesque monster, likened by Maudslay to a frog. (Compare also the top 
of Altar T.) The front is sculptured with the familiar double-headed 
dragon with a human head in one of its mouths. The adjacent side to the 
left and the back are inscribed with glyphs, 2 glyph-blocks on the former and 
5 on the latter, or 7 for the entire text. The remaining side is occupied by 
the head of the frog on the top, which stretches over this end. 

This text is of particular interest because of the fact that all of its glyphs! 
are full-figure forms, in which respect it is like Altar W’; in fact, as will appear 
in the discussion of Altar W’, these two monuments are very similar in size, 
shape, and glyphic treatment. Unfortunately neither has an Initial Series, 





1 That is, all that could be full-figure forms. A few, Ea, Fa and Ga, for example, are geometric glyphs, which 
do not appear to have ever had full-figure variants. 


294 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


although the contemporaneous date of W’ is almost surely 9.17.5.0.0. (See 
P. 332.) 

The inscription opens on the back at the left with a glyph which may 
easily be identified as 13 Ahau (see figure 45) the day-sign cartouche con- 





Fic. 45.—Calendar Round date on back of Altar D’. 


taining a human figure seated cross-legged. Following this at B and c are 
two human figures in the same posture, the meanings of which are unknown. 
The fourth glyph, p, is the month corresponding to the day in a. This is 
either Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh, and is bound to the back of a human figure 
which is the month-sign coefficient. This is almost identical in form and 
presentation with the month-sign and coefficient on Altar W’ (compare 
figures 45 and 46,d, cl); and to a somewhat lesser degree with the corresponding 
glyph on Stela D, as where the full-figure variants are also used. Since the 
day sign is surely Ahau, the month coefficient can only be either 3, 8, 13, or 18. 
A careful examination of the original failed to disclose the presence of a 
fleshless lower jaw, which further reduces the possibilities to 3 or 8, and of 
these, 8 would seem to be the better reading. The turban-like head-dress 
is apparently part of the band holding the month-sign on the figure’s back, 
and is not the characteristic banded head-dress of the head for 3. However, 
3 is a possible, though not the preferable, reading here. 

The superfix of the month-sign is unusual . It bears absolutely 
no resemblance whatever to the superfix either C+ of Yax or of Ceh, both 
of which are always bilaterally symmetrical with reference to the vertical 
axis, though it may be either Chen or Zac, with the latter much the better 
reading. It is almost identical with the superfix of the month-sign on Altar 
W’ (ci, figure 46, d), but unfortunately the month in the latter text is an 
error, and its value can not be checked. (See p. 332.) One thing is certain, 
however, that the month-sign here at p on Altar D’, and at c1 on Altar W’, 
are the same, and the identification of one would lead to the reading of the 
other. ‘The four possible readings of a,p, therefore, are 13 Ahau 3 or 8 Chen 
or Zac, with 13 Ahau 8 Zac as the best. Each of these four possible dates 
occurred but once near the date of the other monuments and temples around 
the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, as follows: 


9.16. 6. 5.0. 13 Ahau 3 Chen 
9.16.18.10.0 13 Ahau 3 Zac 
9.16. 1. 4.0 13 Ahau 8 Chen 
9.16.13. 9.0 13 Ahau 8 Zac 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 295 


Aside from being the best reading obtained from an inspection of the 
text, the last also is the only one which appears to have any special relation- 
ship with other dates in or about this court. The last is only 85 days later 
than the last date on the pedestal of Stela N, about so meters to the 
east, and only a little over a year (423 days) later than the important date 
9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 1o Mol inscribed on the step of Temple 11 on the 
south side of this court. The third reading above is the second choice. It 
antedates both Stele M and N, however, the former of which certainly would 
seem to have been erected before this altar. The first two values are hardly 
probable, as the month coefficient is almost surely 8. 

The glyph following the month-sign, Ea, is a well-known ending-sign, 
composed of the clasped hand and superfix with curl infix. As none of the 
possible dates end even tuns of the Long Count, it is difficult to see what can 
be the significance of this sign here. The remaining glyph on the back, gd, 
is a human figure of unknown meaning. 

The inscription is concluded on the south end, none of the four glyphs 
of which are decipherable. The second, Fd, is the sign which Goodman 
identifies, though probably incorrectly, as the glyph for the tonalamatl.! 
The next, ca, is a familiar glyph composed of the kin, Caban, and tun signs. 
Its meaning, however, is also unknown. The last glyph is another human 
figure of unknown meaning. 

The date 9.16.13.9.0 for Altar D’ would make it less than 12 years earlier 
than Altar W’, which it most closely resembles on stylistic grounds, but this 
reading is so doubtful that it should be accepted only with reservation. 


We come next to a very important group of monuments, all recording 
the same date, namely, 6 Caban 10 Mol, although all of them were probably 
not executed at the same time. There are seven of these in all: Altars V, 
R, U, Q, and T, Stela 8, and a step and door-jamb in Temple 11; and as the 
discussion proceeds it will become evident that in spite of the fact that the 
accompanying Initital Series is not recorded or at least has not been pre- 
served in a single instance, there is ample proof that it could only have been 
9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol. Finally, there is an eighth monument, Frag- 
ment E’, which should be included here, as it records the first katun anni- 
versary of this date. 

Four of these monuments, Altars V, R, and U and Temple 11, actually 
appear to have been dedicated on this date, and three of the remaining four, 
although later, give it a prominent place in their inscriptions. Thus, for 
example, although the contemporaneous date of Altar Q is 9.17.5.0.0 6 Ahau 
13 Kayab, it has 6 Caban 10 Mol as its most conspicuous date. And again, 
although Altar T and Stela 8? close with the first katun anniversary of this 
date, namely, 9.17.12.5.17 4 Caban 10 Zip, they both begin with 6 Caban 
10 Mol itself. Finally, as noted above, Fragment E’ also probably records 
this same katun anniversary. 


CS Sa no as i i ee ee 
1 Goodman, 1897, pp. 28-31. 2 The closing date on Stela 8 is really 5 days later, viz., 9.17.12.6.2 9 Ik 15 Zip. 


296 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


In order to preserve the chronological order of presentation followed 
throughout this study, it will be necessary to divide this group of monuments. 
Altars V, R, and U and Temple 11 will be described first as being next in the 
chronological sequence. Altars Q and T, Stela 8, and Fragment E’, on the 
other hand, will not be described until after the monuments dating from 
9.17.0.0.0 (pp. 318-326) have been presented, that is, where they properly 
follow in the chronological sequence. 


ALTAR V. 


Provenance: Original position uncertain. Somewhere in the Western 
Court of the Acropolis, Main Structure. The original 
is now in the Peabody Museum, Catalogue No. C, 15. 

(See plate 6.) 


Date: 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol. 
Text, drawing: Gordon, 1902, figures 20 and 21. 
Reference: Gordon, 1902, p. 181. 


Altar V seems to be the earliest monument of this group. Unfortunately 
there is some uncertainty as to its exact provenance, although it is clear 
that it was found somewhere in the Western Court of the Acropolis, Main 
Structure. 

The original is now in the Peabody Museum (Catalogue No. C, 15), 
having been brought back from Copan by the First Expedition in 1892. 
In the museum catalogue its provenance is given as “near southern base of 
Mound, western court of Main Structure.” This would appear to refer to 
Mound 11, on the north side of this court, and it is shown in this position 
on the map in plate 6. 

A photograph in the Peabody Museum collection, No. 13, showing this 
altar, casts some doubt on this provenance. This says “Tablet with hiero- 
glyphs found in Western Court at southern base of Mound 22.” This is 
incorrect as it stands, since Mound 22 Is on the north side of the Eastern 
Court, and not of the Western Court. (See plate 6.) 

Gordon, in his monograph on the Hieroglyphic Stairway, figures a draw- 
ing of this altar, but says nothing as to its provenance. ‘The titles of the 
two drawings which he gives of it are: “Figure 20. Inscription on the 
four sides of a small stone table from Copan,” and “Figure 21. Date on the 
top of table having the inscription shown in Figure 20 on the edges.’”! 

Since both the Peabody Museum catalogue and photograph agree (1) 
as to its having been found in the Western Court and (2) as at the southern 
base of a mound, and since the title of the photograph No. 13 is obviously 
incorrect as it stands, it seems highly probably that it was found at the 
southern base of Mound 11, in the Western Court, as shown in plate 6. 
If 22” is changed to “11” on this photograph, both accounts will agree. 

Altar V isa rectangular block of stone 66 cm. long, 38 cm. wide, and 19 cm. 
high. When found it was broken into two pieces. The top and four sides 





1 Gordon, 1902, p. I81. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 297 


are covered with glyphs, the bottom being plain. There are two large 
glyphs on the top, four smaller ones on each of the long sides, and three 
smaller ones on each of the ends, making 2 + 3 + 4 +3 +4 = 16 for the 
entire text. There is no other decoration. A comparison of Gordon’s 
drawing with the original shows that it is accurate and adequate for all 
purposes of study. Although he calls Altar V a table, “altar” appears to 
the writer to be a better name for it. In size, shape, and treatment it very 
closely resembles Altar S, and would seem to be admirably adapted for use 
in ceremonies in which small offerings were made. 

The two large glyph-blocks on the top are exceedingly clear, and un- 
mistakably record the Calendar Round date 9 Cimi 14 Yaxkin. The 
inscription on the back, 7. ¢., one of the long sides, opens with another Calen- 
dar Round date which is equally clear as 6 Caban to Mol, the month coef- 
ficient being the head-variant for 10. There are no other calendric signs 
in the two remaining glyph-blocks on this side, and on the opposite long side 
all four glyph-blocks are effaced. The inscription on the two ends is par- 
tially effaced, although enough remains to show that there are no calendric 
signs here. 

We have, then, as the net result of our inspection, two Calendar Round 
dates, g Cimi 14 Yaxkin and 6 Caban 10 Mol, but no Secondary Series 
number to connect them, or no Initial Series to fix either in its proper posi- 
tion in the Long Count. One of these, 6 Caban 10 Mol, as already stated, 
is probably the most important date in the history of Copan, first because 
it occurs many times more than any other date not a hotun-ending—eight 
times in ali—and second, because it does not end a tun, hotun, lahuntun, 
or katun of the Long Count, and is therefore probably to be associated with 
some actual historical or astronomical event. 

The first question is, which of these two dates is the earlier? Was the 
count forward from 9 Cimi 14 Yaxkin to 6 Caban 10 Mol, or vice versa? 
By referring to Goodman’s tables it will be found that 6 Caban 10 Mol is 
later than 9 Cimi 14 Yaxkin by 7.2.11 (about 7 years), whereas 9 Cimi 14 
Yaxkin is later than 6 Caban 10 Mol by 2.5.10.9 (about 45 years).! That is 
to say, if 6 Caban 10 Mol is the starting-point, the other date recorded would 
not occur until 45 years later, whereas if 9 Cimi 14 Yaxkin is the starting- 
point, the other date recorded will occur in a little more than 7 years. This, 
together with the fact that 6 Caban 10 Mol is by far the more important 
date of the two, practically proves that it is the later and contemporaneous 
date of the altar. However, even though it be accepted as established that 


1 Since any Maya date recurred at intervals of 52 years, the sum of two numbers, one counted forward from a 
given date x to reach a given date y and the other forward from the same date y to reach the next occurrence of 
date x, must equal 2.12.13.0 or 52 years, as here: 

9.16. 5. 3. 6 9g Cimi 14 Yaxkin 
7. 2.11 (7 years+) 
9.16.12. 5.17. 6 Caban 10 Mol 


2. 5.10.9 (45 years—) 
9.18.17.16. 6 9 Cimi 14 Yaxkin 


298 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


the count here is forward 7.2.11 from 9 Cimi 14 Yaxkin to 6 Caban 10 Mol, 
there is nothing on this inscription which will fix either of these dates to 
their corresponding positions in Maya chronology. 

It will be remembered that the Initial Series 9.16.12.5.17 was assigned to 
the date 6 Caban 10 Mol in the synoptic presentation of this monument, 
and the reader is asked to accept this value for the present, until the evidence 
by means of which it was reached has been presented. If 9.16.12.5.17 is 
the correct Initial Series for the date 6 Caban 10 Mol, the Initial Series 
for g Cimi 14 Yaxkin can be shown by calculation to have been 9.16.5.3.6, 


as follows: 
9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol 
7.2.11 backward 
9-10:75.3.40 ©" 9, Cinnir4.) axkin 


This latter date is only 66 days later than the hotun Stela M was erected 
to commemorate, 9.16.5.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Zotz, an additional reason for believing 
these two dates are correctly deciphered as given. Final proof, however, 
will be forthcoming with the presentation of the other monuments of this 


group. 
ALTAR R. 


Provenance: On the southern end of Terrace 17 at the northwestern 
corner of Mound 18 of the Acropolis, Main Structure. 
Removed by Maudslay in 1885 and now at the South 
Kensington Museum, England. (See plate 6.) 


Date: 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol. 

Text, drawing: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 94. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, figure 177, p. 757. 

References: Goodman, 1897, p. 134. 


Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 60. 
Spinden, 1913, table 1. 

Altar R was found by Maudslay at the southern end of the terrace in 
front of Mound 18 at the Main Structure, which the river has almost com- 
pletely washed away, and was removed by him to the South Kensington 
Museum in 1885. It is very similar to Altars S and V in size, shape, and 
treatment. It is 1.02 meters long, 81 cm. wide, and 36 cm. high. On the 
front is a death’s head carved in rather high relief, and on the back and 
sides, two horizontal rows of glyph-blocks each, 8 to a side or 8+8+8=24 
for the entire text. The top is plain. 

As this monument was removed before the Peabody Museum began 
to work at Copan, there is no photograph of it in its collection. Indeed, 
so far as the writer knows, no photograph of it has ever been published. 
This is unfortunate, as the text is important in that it is one of those belong- 
ing to this group. 

Assuming that the death’s head is the front of the altar, the text starts 
on the adjacent side to the right. This is one of the short sides, as the death’s 
head is on one of the long sides. As only one of the short sides opens with a 
date (the one figured next after the front by Maudslay) the writer believes 
it must have begun the inscription. This date is very clearly and unmis- 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 299 


takably 6 Caban 10 Mol, and following this in a2 is what appears to be a 
variant of the lahuntun-sign. There are no other glyphs on this side of a 
decipherable nature. The eight glyph-blocks on the back are also of unknown 
meaning, with the exception of the last, which is the Venus-sign. 

The only decipherable glyphs on the remaining side are the fourth and 
fifth, j2, K1, which, according to Maudslay’s drawing, unmistakably record 
another Calendar Round date, 7 Ahau 3 Zip. There is no Secondary Series 
anywhere in the text to connect these two dates or an Initial Series to fix 
either to its proper position in the Long Count. 

By referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that if 6 Caban to 
Mol is the starting-point, it will be necessary to count forward 1.10.2.3, 
about 30 years, in order to reach 7 Ahau 3 Zip; and if 7 Ahau 3 Zip is the 
starting-point, it will be necessary to count forward 1.2.10.17, about 22 years, 
to reach 6 Caban 10 Mol. The writer believes the latter is the correct inter- 
pretation here, for the following reasons: 


1. The count on Altar V, which 1s similar in every respect (i. ¢., two dates, one, 
6 Caban 10 Mol, and no number connecting them) was forward to and not backward 
from 6 Caban 10 Mol, though in this case the time was much shorter, 7. ¢., 7 years 
against 45 years, as it would have been had the order been reversed. It there- 
fore seems likely, reasoning by analogy, that 7 Ahau 3 Zip is the starting-point here. 

2. The distance from 7 Ahau 3 Zip to 6 Caban 10 Mol is nearly 8 years shorter 
than the reverse, an additional reason for accepting 7 Ahau 3 Zip as the starting- 
point. 

3. Finally, there is no question but that 6 Caban 10 Mol was by far the more 
important date of these two. ‘Therefore, since the overwhelming tendency in the 
Maya inscriptions was to record the most important date last, it is correspond- 
ingly probable that 7 Ahau 3 Zip is the starting-point here. 


But even with this point established, it sheds no light on the proper 
position of either of these two dates in the Long Count. Assuming once 
more (until definite proof has been presented) that the Initial Series of 6 
Caban 10 Mol was 9.16.12.5.17, the Initial Series corresponding to 7 Ahau 
3 Zip can be shown by calculation to have been 9.15.9.13.0, viz: 


9.16.12. 5.17. 6 Caban 10 Mol 
I. 2.10.17 backward 
Gis. 9.14. 0 7 Ahau’3 Zip 


ALTAR. U. 


Provenance: Formerly with Altar T, just west of the large plain 
stela in front (7.¢., west) of the high mound at the 
southeastern corner of Group 9. Removed in 1893 
to the center of the village plaza. (See plate 3 and 
figure 22, c and d). 
Date: 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol. 
Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 97. 
(b) drawing: bid, plate 98. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 165, 206, 207. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 134. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 63. 
Spinden, 1913, table 1. 


300 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Altar U now stands under the large ceiba tree in the middle of the village 
plaza (Group 9), in which conspicuous position, unfortunately, it receives more 
than its share of the destructive attentions of the villagers and their live-stock. 
(See figure 22, d.) Both Maria Melendrez and Jacobo Madrid tell the 
following story of its original provenance, and the circumstances attending 
its removal to the plaza. Formerly it stood with Altar T under a large 
amate tree just west of the plain stela in front (z.e., west) of the high mound 
at the southeastern corner of the village plaza. This amate tree formerly 
stood where now the doorway from the courtyard of the house of Don Juan 
Ramon Cuevas opens into the street running south from the southeastern 
corner of the plaza, which serves to fix the original positions of Altars T and 
U and of Fragment E’ found under the latter. (See figure 22,c.) In 1893, 
shortly after the municipality was organized, Carlos Madrid, then com- 
mandante of Santa Rita, assembled all the villagers, and had them drag 
both Altars T and U from under this amate tree to the center of the plaza, 
where they now stand. 

Altar U is 1.5 meters long, 61 cm. wide, and 91 cm. high. The front 
is carved in the semblance of a grotesque head, and each side with a serpent 
whose gaping jaws inclose a seated human figure. There are also a pair 
of glyph-blocks on each side. The back is entirely covered with the inscrip- 
tion, 10 columns of 5 glyph-blocks each, or 49 for the entire panel, the space 
of one glyph-block, cs, being occupied by an inclusion of harder volcanic rock, 
which the ancient artisans found themselves unable either to reduce or remove. 
A description of this, together with the material of the body of the altar, will 
be found in Appendix I. The top also is entirely covered with glyphs, 8 
columns of 3 glyph-blocks each, or 24 in all. This makes a total of 2+2+49 
+24=77 for the entire monument. 

To read the inscription, one must face the back of the altar, in which 
position only will the columns of glyphs there appear right side up. The 
panel of 24 glyph-blocks on the top is to be read first, and, so far as the writer 
can detect, it is entirely independent of the panel of glyphs on the back, 
although the lower edge of the former touches the upper edge of the latter. 
The sequence of glyphs appears to be as follows: First, the panel on top— 
Al, Bi, A2, B2, A3, B3, Cl, Dl; C2, D2,°C3, D3, etc., throuen Gz, H3. then thee 
glyphs 1, j1, on the left side (facing the back of the monument); then the 
entire panel of 10 vertical columns on the back, which is to be read in pairs 
of columns, thus: K1, L1, K2, L2, K3, L3, K4, L4, K5, L5, M1, N1, etc., through 5, Ts; 
and finally, the last two glyphs on the right side, U1, v1, which close the insce 
tion. The text opens at a1, B1 with a Calendar Round date which is either 
2 Caban o Pop or 3 Caban o Pop. A first-hand study of the day-coefficient 
established the fact that the lower dot is surely numerical, thus limiting the 
number to 2 or 3; and since the stump of the destroyed middle dot in no way 
differs from the stump of the destroyed upper dot, which is known to have 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 301 


been numerical,' the latter reading, 3 Caban o Pop, is practically certain. 
Moreover, as will be shown later, 3 Caban o Pop is closely connected with 
another date on Altar U, whereas 2 Caban o Pop has no significant relation- 
ship with any other dates on the monument. Indeed, all things considered, 
the date in a1, B1 may be accepted with certainty as 3 Caban o Pop. This 
date occurred in the Great Period, to which Altar U must be referred on 
stylistic grounds, in two places, namely, at 9.15.9.10.17 and 9.18.2.5.17. 
Before attempting to decide which of these two is the correct value here, 
let us examine the text further. 

Following A1, B1 in A2 is a Secondary Series composed of two coefficients 
attached to the tun-sign:O&2:8. The one to the left is clearly 2, and the 
Onevabove, 11 or 13. A {an first-hand study of the latter established 
the fact that although Ox° 2 both the outside dots are destroyed, their 
stumps looked just like the middle dot, which is undoubtedly numerical. 
It is obvious, further, that either the uinal or kin coefficient must be 0, 
otherwise it could not have been omitted. The only reading of a2 which 
appears to have any particular significance is based on the assumption 
that the kin coefficient is 0; and that the tun and uinal coefficients are 
reversed in position, the 2 at the left being the tun coefficient and the 13 
above the uinal coefficient. Although this latter is just the reverse of the 
usual order in Secondary Series numbers, such cases occur,” and the rela- 
tionship which this inversion makes possible amply justifies its acceptance 
here. A2 therefore probably records 2.13.0, and if this number is counted 
forward from 3 Caban o Pop, the date reached will be found to be 8 Caban 
10 Mac, which is exactly 1 katun earlier than 6 Caban 10 Mol, the important 
date recorded so many times during the Great Period here at Copan, and 
in fact on this very monument at K1, L1. But we have already assumed that 
the Initial Series of this latter date was probably 9.16.12.5.17, and we may 
therefore calculate the Initial Series of these other two dates, 7. ¢., 3 Caban 
o Pop and 8 Caban 10 Mac (the latter not recorded), as shown on page 302. 





17This results directly from the Maya method of notation. When there is an uneven number of effaced 
elements—always 3—the upper and lower elements are always the same. If they are numerical, the number 
may be either 2 or 3, depending on whether the middle element is numerical or ornamental. But if the upper 
and lower elements are ornamental, the number can only be 1. So here, since the lower element is surely numeri- 
cal, the coefficient must either be 2 or 3, depending on the character of the middle element. Maudslay’s drawing 
of this glyph (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 98, glyph 1) shows a cross between the two dots. The original, however, does 
not show this, having quite clearly the traces of a middle dot. 

2 A case in point is glyph a17 on the west side of Stela E at Quirigua. Here the uinal-sign is surmounted by a 
coefficient of 19 (clearly an impossible value in Maya numeration) and preceded by a coefhcient of 4. At first 
sight this distance-number would appear to be 8.19.4. The two dates which it separates are 9.16.11.13.1 II 
Imix 19 Muan and 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu. But these two dates are only 8.4.19 apart, viz: 


9.16.11.13. 1 11 Imix 19 Muan 
8. 4.19 

9.17. 0.0.0 13Ahau 18 Cumhu 
and it is therefore evident that the usual positions of the uinal and kin coefficients are reversed, the 19 standing 
above the uinal-sign instead of to the left. Glyph 12 of the same inscription is another case in point. Here the 
kin coefficient 6 stands above the uinal-sign instead of to its left. The Secondary Series number beginning the 
west side of the pedestal of Stela N, here at Copan, 2.6.0 also shows this same inversion of the regular order. A 
few other examples might be cited, but the foregoing are sufficient to show that this unusual arrangement sometimes 
occurs. It seems to have arisen from a desire to improve the appearance of the glyph rather than as indicating any 
corresponding change in the number thus manipulated. 


302 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Al, BI 9.15. 9.10.17 3 Cabano Pop 

A2 rete fe 

Not recorded, 9.15.12. 5.17. 8 Caban 10 Mac 
1.80.10H0 

Kr. U1, 9.16.12. 5.17. 6 Caban 10 Mol 


Returning to the discussion of the glyphs on the top, it will be found 
that there are no others of a calendric nature after the number 2.13.0 in 
A2. Some of the remaining glyphs are of familiar form, such as the head of 
God C in c3 and again in F1 and the Zotz head with the Ben—Ik superfix in 
H3, but none are of known meaning. 

The inscription is continued at 11, which is clearly the katun-sign with 
a coefficient of 10 prefixed to it.’ {32 Originally there was another coeffi- 
cient above, but this 1s now de- stroyed. It could not have been 
above 5, however, and, as we g® shall see, was probably only 1. 
Following this, at J1, is a grotesque head, and just around the corner at k1, 
L1 the date ? Caban ? Mol, both the day and month-signs being certain, 
and the coefficients in each case being above 5 but under 11. 

We can hardly refuse to recognize in K1, L1, therefore, the well-known 
date 6 Caban 10 Mol found so frequently in this group of monuments, and 
while direct proof of this reading is lacking, strong indirect confirmation of 
itexistes 

1. In the first place, the date recorded is ? Caban ? Mol, with the two effaced 
coeflicients surely above 5 but under 11. No other date has been found at Copan 
wherein the day-sign is Caban and the month-sign Mol, except 6 Caban 10 Mol, 
which is found, however, in seven other sculptures, all from the close of the Great 
Period. The conclusion, therefore, is almost inevitable that 6 Caban 10 Mol is 
recorded here, particularly since the spaces occupied by the effaced day and month 
coefficients also agree with this reading. 

2. This date is recorded in the most conspicuous place on the monument, 
namely, in the first two glyph-blocks on the back. 

3. Finally, by reading Ki, L1 as 6 Caban 10 Mol an interesting condition 
develops. 






Returning to the Secondary Series number in 11, we see that at least 
two of its coefficients have been omitted. There is a Io to the left of the 
katun-sign and probably 1 above, leaving two coefficients missing, pre- 
sumably both o. This is the only case of its kind of which the writer knows. 
There are several instances, as already noted, where two coefficients are 
attached to the tun-sign and one missing; indeed, such a case occurs in this 
same inscription at A2. But this is the only place known where two coeff- 
cients are missing. It is doubtless perfectly safe to assume that they were 
both 0, and the real difficulty is to determine how these four coefficients of 
I, 0, 0, and 10 are to be distributed among the four periods involved here: 
katuns, tuns, uinals, and kins. This question is incapable of positive answer 
at this time, but the arrangement suggested below is not only the most 





1 Maudslay’s drawing of this glyph (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 98, glyph 25) is incorrect. He shows the katun-sign 
as extending to the top of the glyph-block, whereas it falls 2.5 cm. short of it, just space enough for a coefficient 
below 6, as noted above. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 303 


logical, but also the only one which develops a significant chronological 
relationship with other dates present in this text.. The writer believes that 
the katun coefficient is recorded above and is 1, since 10, the only other 
value possible, represents too long a stretch of time to have been recorded 
upon a monument all of whose dates save one are within a few years of each 
other, the odd date being 6 Caban 10 Mol. Although the number above 
the katun-sign is completely effaced, we have seen that it was under 6. 
If used as 1, however, there is developed a significant relationship with the 
other dates recorded, a relationship, moreover, which does not follow if the 
katun coefficient is used as either 2, 3, 4, or 5. Finally, unless the kin 
coefficient is 10 and the two intermediate coefficients both o, the Maya 
themselves must have been at loss to read such an abbreviated number 
correctly. Now, if the number above be regarded as the coefficient of the 
highest period present (7. ¢., the katun), and the number to the left as the 
coefficient of the lowest period present (7. ¢., the kin), it should be noted 
that the regular order in the overwhelming majority of all Maya Secondary 
Series numbers will have been followed, and no confusion could have arisen 
in the minds of the inhabitants of the city as to the number recorded in 11. 
If this is correct, then 11 may be deciphered as I.0.0.10, and by its position 
in the inscription, 1.¢., immediately preceding 6 Caban to Mol in ki, 11, 
it is probable that this number is to be counted forward from some date to 
reach 6 Caban 10 Mol. 

This starting-point can be shown by calculation to be 11 Manik o Mac, 
and since the Initial Series of 6 Caban 10 Mol has been assumed to be 
9.16.12.5.17, the Initial Series of the unexpressed starting-point, 11 Manik 
o Mac, can also be established by calculation, as follows: 

9.16.12. 5.17. 6 Caban 1o Mol 
I. 0.0.10 backward 
9.15.52. 5.7 11. Mamko Mac 

And here lies the significant connection above noted. This latter date, 
9.15.12.5.7 11 Manik 0 Mac, the starting-point of the Secondary Series num- 
ber in 11, although not recorded, is just 10 days earlier than the date (also 
not recorded) reached by counting the first Secondary Series number 2.13.0 
in A2 forward from the first date, 3 Caban o Pop, in a1, B1. In other words, 
the record overlaps 1o days here. 

AI, BI 9.15. 9.10.17. 3 Cabano Pop 
A2 B13 2,0 
Not recorded 9.15.12. 5.17. 8 Caban 10 Mac 

Moreover, in further confirmation of this reading, we will find a date 
just 7 days earlier than 9.15.12.5.7 11 Manik o Mac farther on. While 
these readings require some restorations in the original, they develop such 
interesting relations that their accuracy is rendered extremely probable. 

The next date is at Ls, M1 and is perfectly clear (except the month coef- 
ficient) as 9 Ik? Mol. When at Copan in 1912 the writer gave this month 
coefficient a close examination. It was evident that it had to be either 


304 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


0, 5, 10, or 15, as the day-sign is clearly Ik. Traces of one bar appear 
surely and there is room for just one bar more of equal width above in order 
to bring the top of this glyph-block up to the same level as the tops of the 
others, but not enough room to allow for two bars more. This makes the 
date almost certainly 9 Ik 10 Mol. ‘The calculations, moreover, prove the 
correctness of this reading almost beyond dispute. The date 9 Ik 10 Mol 
is only 215 days earlier than 3 Caban o Pop, the first date in this inscription, 
and only 150 days later than the last date on this monument, namely, 
2 Ebo Pop. In other words, it stands between the first and last dates on 
this monument, which themselves record two consecutive New Years’ days 
of the Long Count.” Moreover, the only other possible reading of L5, M1 is 
9 Ik 5 Mol, which develops no such a relation. g Ik 10 Mol occurred in 
Cycle 9 nearest the Initial Series of 3 Caban o Pop and 6 Caban 10 Mol at 
9.15.9.0.2, which is just 10 uinals and 15 kins earlier than the former, viz: 


9.15.9.10.17. 3 Cabano Pop 
10.15 backward 
9.15.9. 0. 2 9 Ik 10 Mol 


This last date has one other interesting property: it is exactly 23 haab or 
years of 365 days earlier than the reading here followed for the important 
date 6 Caban 10 Mol. 1.3.5.15 =8,395 days=23 X 365 days. 

The next date, N4, is very clearly 4 Ahau 13 Ceh, probably 9.15.12.5.0 
4 Ahau 13 Ceh, which occurred just 7 days before the starting-point of the 
second Secondary Series number in I, 1.¢., 9.15.12.5.7, and just 17 days 
before the closing-date reached by the first Secondary Series number in 
Al; 0: 15st 2sGt 

The next date, 01, pi, is 4 Ahau 13 Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh. Most un- 
fortunately, the superfix which would have determined this point is almost 
entirely effaced. From what remains of it, it would appear to have been 
Yax. Following this in 02 is 11, 12, or 13 tuns. Now, 4 Ahau 13 Yax 
occurred at 9.15.0.0.0, and counting back 12 tuns from the date next pre- 
ceding in the text, namely, 9.15.12.5.0 4 Ahau 13 Ceh in n4, will bring the 
count very near (within 100 days) 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax. Or again, in 
counting back 13 tuns from 9.15.12.5.0 4 Ahau 13 Ceh, the count passes 
through 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax to’9.14.19.5.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan, which 
latter date we have already seen recorded on Stela A here at Copan, and a 
date, moreover, just 1 tonalamatl before 9.15.0.0.0. Whatever meaning 





1 Another point proving that the coefhcient in Mi was Io and not 5 is the following: the month-sign, Mol, 
in M1 is exactly the same height as the month-sign Mol in the glyph on its left, 11 the coeficient of which, as we 
have already seen, is almost certainly 10. Therefore, if the coefficient of L1 was 10, the coefficient of m1 would in 
all likelihood have been the same, that is, would have been composed of an equal number of bars 7. ¢., two. 

2 Landa states explicitly and unequivocally that the Maya of Yucatan 7. ¢., of the New Empire, began their 
year with the first day of the month Pop, 2.¢., o Pop: 

“The first day of the year with these people was always on the XVI day of our month July, [O. S.] and the 
first of their month Pop.” (Landa, 1881, p. 90.) And again: “The first day of Pop, which is the first month 
of the Indians, was their New Year and was a very celebrated festival among them.” (Jdid., p. 97.) The evi- 
dence here on Altar U, and also on one of the inscribed lintels at Tikal, tends to indicate that o Pop was also the 
New Year Day in the Old Empire as well. 


MORLEY. 


PLATE 29 





| 
. 


i a's leas 


ry 
FI os Exo 
5 ii el) 





Inscriptions in the doorways of Temple 11. (a and b) South Doorway, (c and d) North Doorway. 
. Drawn from the original. 


ECKERT LITHO, cO., WASH,,0.C. 


_ SS Oe ees Se ha el Oe ee ? 
a os 2 <9 \ 
_ - 
’ . 
: 





INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 305 


the 13 tuns may have in 02, the date in 01, P1 is almost surely 9.15.0.0.0 
4 Ahau 13 Yax. 

The last date, 03, p3, is either 2 Eb 0 Pop or 3 Eb o Pop, in either case 
another Maya New Years’ day. The lower dot is surely numerical, which 
makes the number either 2 or 3; and as the stump of the middle dot is larger 
than the bottom one, this number is probably 2. The writer examined this 
coefficient very carefully in 1916 and came to the conclusion that it could 
only have been 2. Indeed, if the day coefficient is 2, such an interesting 
relationship with the first date on this altar develops that we would be almost 
justified in so reading it, even if 2 were not the best value obtained by in- 
spection. Ifthis date is 2 Eb o Pop, when used with the first date in this text, 
3 Caban o Pop, two consecutive New Years’ days are recorded; and since 
the Initial Series of 3 Caban o Pop has been assumed tohave beeng.15.9.10.17, 
that of 2 Eb o Pop can be reached by calculation as follows: 

g.15.9.10.17 3 Cabano Pop 
I. O. 5 =I year of 365 days, backward 
(al nko 2 ee 2 OP op 

This coincidence is so striking as to make it practically certain that both 
dates are correctly deciphered as given. 

From this point on to the end of the inscription in vi there are no other 
glyphs of a calendary nature, so far as known. 

Before analyzing the possible significance ofthis text, let us summarize 
the dates deciphered, arranging them so far as possible in their chronological 


order: 
Not recorded 9.14.19. 5. O 4 Ahau 18 Muan (?) 


Not recorded (13. 0) ‘1 tonalamatl 

O1, Pi Gil Os020 4 Ahau 13 Yax 

03, P3 9.15. 8.10.12 2 Eb o Pop, a New Year begins 

Ls, M1 5? Sed 9 Ik 10 Mol, exactly 23 haab before 


the important date 6 Caban Io 


) 
AI, Bl 9.15. 9.10.17 3 Caban o Pop, next New Year begins 
A2 2.05. 
Not recorded (9.15.12. 5.17 8 Caban 10 Mac), exactly 1 katun 
before the important date 6 
Caban 10 Mol 
02 13.(0. 0) to be added to first date 
N4 S542; S20 4 Ahau 13 Ceh, just 7 days earlier 
than the following date and 17 
days earlier than the preceding 


date 
Not recorded (9.15.12. 5. 7 11 Maniko Mac) 
I I, 0, 0.10 
Ki, Le folmh Fp ae at a, 6 Caban 10 Mol, the latest date on the 


the monument and also the 
most important, beginning the 
inscription on the back 
The first outstanding fact in connection with this inscription is that the 
closing and probably also the contemporaneous date as well, is the important 
date 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol, recorded most conspicuously as the first 


date on the back. 


306 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The next important fact is that two consecutive New Years’ days are 
recorded which are more than a katun prior to this closing date, and which 
contain between them, a date (9 Ik 10 Mol) exactly 23 haab earlier than this 
closing date. The latter of these, moreover (9.15.9.10.17 3 Caban o Pop), 
is used as a point of departure for a number (2.13.0) which brings the count 
forward to a date, not recorded, exactly 1 katun eailier than the important 
closing date. But since it only occurs this once at Copan as compared to 
eight occurrences of 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol itself, it probably did not 
become important until after 9.16.12.5.17, at which time the priests projected 
back their calculations so as to include it here. This preceding katun 
anniversary of 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban ro Mol, 1e., 9.15.12.5.17 8 Caban 10 
Mac, however, must have been regarded as having been fairly important, 
since there are two other dates on Altar U within 10 and 17 days of it, 
respectively. The earlier of these, 9.15.12.5.0 4 Ahau 13 Ceh, is possibly 
used as a point of departure for a backward count of 13 tuns to 9.14.19.5.0 
4 Ahau 18 Muan, recorded on Stela A, which is just 1 tonalamatl before the 
end of an even katun 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax, which also appears on Altar 
U at 01, Pi. 

The other one of these two dates, 9.15.12.5.7 11 Maniko Mac, though not 
recorded, is the point of departure for the Secondary Series number 1.0.0.10 
in 11, Jl, whose terminal date is 6 Caban 10 Mol, the closing date of the 
inscription. These three dates, 9.15.12.5.0, 9.15.12.5.7, and 9.15.12.5.17, 
are only 110, 103, and 93 days earlier respectively than Date 11 of the 
Hieroglyphic Stairway, 9.15.12.10.10 10 Oc 3 Cumhu, which may indicate 
some relationship between them. 

Finally, the remaining date, 9.15.9.0.2 9 Ik 10 Mol, occurs between the 
two New Years’ days recorded, 150 days after the earlier one and 215 days 
before the later one, and is just 23 haab earlier than 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 
10 Mol. Goodman makes no attempt to decipher this inscription, confining 
himself to the observation that “‘so much is illegible, and so much of the 
remainder is unintelligible . . . . that nothing connected can be made of 
ttsas 

Bowditch, on the other hand, was the first to point out that this in- 
scription has two New Years’ days in it, although in the writer’s opinion he 
reads both incorrectly, the first as 10.1.7.3.17 2 Caban o Pop instead of 
9.15.9.10.17 3 Caban o Pop, and the second as 9.14.16.7.12 3 Eb o Pop 
instead of 9.15.8.10.12 2 Eb 0 Pop.’ These readings are open to two seri- 
ous, if not indeed eliminative, objections; first, instead of I year apart as 
suggested here, they make these two New Years’ days 129 years apart: 
6.10.14.5 =47,085 days=365 X129; and second, they both lie beyond the 
extremes of the other dates on this altar, 9.14.16.7.12, being 3 years earlier 











1 Goodman, 1897, p. 134. 

2 Bowditch (1910, pp. 206, 207) gives the first of these Initial Series, 10.1.7.3.17 outright, but the second, 
9.14.16.7-12, he only implies, saying 922 days (2.10.2) backward from 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax reaches (9.14.17.- 
7.18) 5 Eznab 1 Pop, and 366 days (1.0.6) further back reaches (9.14.16.7.12) 3 Eb o Pop. As pointed out above 
the writer can not agree with either of these readings. : 


ji 3 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 307 


than the earliest, and 10.1.7.3.17, being more than 57 years later than the 
latest contemporaneous date on any monument at Copan, 7. ¢., 9.18.10.0.0 
on Altar G;. He also deciphers Ls, m1 as 9 [k o Mol instead of 9 Ik 10 Mol 
as probably recorded. On the basis of his readings he sees here an ingenious 
intercalary count—no less than the number of days necessary at 10.1.7.3.17 
2 Caban o Pop to bring the calendar and the true solar year into harmony. 
Unfortunately, the three dates upon which this reading rests are probably 
incorrectly deciphered as used, and, moreover, 10.1.7.3.17 is too late to be 
historically probable at Copan. 

It is not claimed that the readings suggested here for the several dates on 
Altar U are beyond question; but the coincidences and inter-relationships 
to which they give rise are strongly in their favor. It must be remembered 
that Copan was at her zenith when this monument was erected, and the 
Initial Series method of recording events had practically ceased to be used— 
gone out of fashion as it were. We are therefore confronted with the serious 
problem of assigning the various Calendar Round dates recorded on these 
later monuments to their proper positions in Maya chronology without 
this valuable check. Usually, however, only two values are possible, as 
practically all such dates lie in the Great Period, 7. ¢., between 9.15.0.0.0 and 
10.2.0.0.0, and at Copan probably between 9.15.0.0.0 and 9.18.10.0.0, 
between which the choice is generally clear. Therefore, although the read- 
ings suggested above lack the indisputable authentication afforded by their 
corresponding Initial Series or even Period Endings, the interrelationships 
developed, as well as the evidence from the stylistic criteria, strongly indi- 
cate their accuracy. Finally, when all the evidence has been presented, it 
will be clear that the Initial Series corresponding to 6 Caban 10 Mol could 
have been none other than 9.16.12.5.17. 


TEMPLE II. 


Provenance: On the summit of the pyramid separating the Court 
of the Hierologyphic Stairway from the Western 
Court, at the Acropolis, Main Structure. (See 
plate 6.) 
Date: 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol. 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 28, c. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 5, 8. 
(b) drawing: plate 29. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 8. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, figure 178, p. 757- 
References: Gordon, 1896, pp. 22, 23. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. I of text, pp. 21, 22. 
Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, p. 758. 
Spinden, 1913, p. 162 and table 1. 


Temple 11 crowns the high pyramid between the Western Court and the 
Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway at the Acropolis, Main Structure. 
The northern facade is the front of the building, and commands a fine view, 
not only of the court just below, but also of the Great Plaza beyond. The 
temple is reached by a single stairway on the north side which originally 


308 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


extended along the entire south side of the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stair- 
way. 

Maudslay seems to have entertained the idea that this stairway divided 
toward the top into three sections, each flight narrowing as it ascended, the 
two outer ones leading to the terraces to the east and west of Temple 11 
respectively and the middle one to a higher elevation, the substructure of 
the temple proper.* 

Gordon, however, mentions but one stairway at this point, the western 
and eastern ends of which lead to the terraces at the west and east ends of 
the temple respectively, and the middle part to the temple itself.2 The 
upper part of this stairway is now completely hidden by the débris fallen 
from the north fagade of the temple, though it appears probable that its 
steps extend across under this material, and that all belong to a single stair- 
way. At the base of the substructure, and directly in line with the middle 
of the doorway of the temple above, stands Stela N, the correlation of the 
two being perfectly clear. This temple is one of the largest and most beau- 
tiful at Copan, the substructure from which it rises being 30 meters above the 
level of the court below. Gordon believes it was a tower of considerable 
height, because of the great quantity of stone lying around its base in every 
direction. The writer, however, does not incline to this view, and Mauds- 
lay, who partially excavated the building, says nothing in his description 
in support of such a conclusion. 

Ascending the broad and spacious stairway on the north side, the three 
top steps® are found to present the double-headed dragon associated with 
human figures seated cross-legged and holding glyphs in their outstretched 
hands. ‘There is one figure on the top step and three on the second step. 
Only one block of the third step is zm situ. The right end of this shows a 
bar-and-dot coefficient of 13. None of the glyphs are decipherable. (See the 
Peabody Museum photographs Nos. 1896 and 1897.) ‘The temple proper 
rises from the very edge of the substructure. At present no exterior walls 
are visible, although excavation would doubtless disclose their bases. The 
vestibule or northern doorway is 2.77 meters wide at the front and was 
probably not more than 1.5 or 2 meters back to the offset, which narrows 
it to a width of 1.89 meters. This back part is 1.83 meters deep and gives 
into a long, narrow, transverse outer gallery, which is upward of 30 meters 
long, though only 1.22 meters wide. (See plate 6.) 

Opposite the outer doorway there is another in the back wall of the 
gallery, its threshold being 46 cm. above the floor-level of the latter. The 
riser of this step, a beautifully sculptured panel 5.5 meters long and 46 
cm. high, was removed by Maudslay to the South Kensington Museum 
in 1885. The doorway to which it leads is 1.5 meters wide and gives into 





1 Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 21. 

* Gordon, 1896, p. 22. 

’ These three steps may not be part of the stairway proper, but may be set back about a meter from the top 
step, leading to a low platform on which Temple 11 may stand. The construction is doubtful here, owing to the 
advanced state of ruin. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 309 


a small central chamber less than 2.75 meters square. From its central 
location this would appear to have been the chief sanctuary or most sacred 
part of the temple. (See plate 6.) 

The doorway giving access to this small central chamber, moreover, is 
flanked by an elaborate design in the outer gallery, which Maudslay be- 
lieves represented a huge serpent head without lower jaws (Maudslay, 1889— 
1902, vol. 1, plate 7, a, and text p.22). Above and extending to the right and 
left of the doorway for a distance of 2.13 meters on each side, and probably 
extending above the doorway itself originally, is a frieze of seated human 
figure and glyphs. This was in a ruinous condition when found, and no 
drawing of it was made. Two fragments, now in the South Kensington 
Museum, are also figured by Maudslay (1889-1902, vol. I, plate 7, b and c). 
When entire this inner doorway must have been one of the finest in the city, 
being surpassed, indeed, only by the inner doorway of Temple 22, and 
possibly by the doorways of Temple 26. 

In the back wall of the sanctuary there is another doorway 1.83 meters 
wide and 1.22 meters deep which terminates with a step 46 cm. high down to 
the level of another small chamber at the rear. The riser of this step is 
sculptured with a row of teeth instead of the seated figures in the same 
relative position in the front gallery. Huge serpent heads also flank the 
jambs of this doorway, which extends clear through to the back of the 
temple and gives on to a narrow terrace overlooking the Western Court. 

The jambs of the two outer doorways, 1.¢., in both the northern and 
southern facades, are inscribed with panels of glyphs. (See plate 6.) 
Unfortunately, the north and south exterior walls suffered most heavily 
when the roof collapsed, and the positions of the individual blocks in 
these mosaics are sometimes difficult to determine. Much, of course, is lost 
forever, but the writer drew what was left in 1915, at which time he was 
able to restore a few blocks to their original positions. (See plate 29.) 

Maudslay only partially excavated this temple (see his map, vol. 1 of text, 
p. 21) and there are doubtless other chambers to the east and west of the 
central gallery running through the building. Indeed, he shows two door- 
ways in the latter leading into interior rooms. (See plate 6.) 

We have, then, in Temple 11, two groups of glyphs available for study:! 
(1) the panel on the step in the outer gallery, now in the South Kensington 
Museum, and (2) the four panels on the jambs of the two exterior doorways. 

The panel on the step in the outer gallery is sculptured with a design 
of 20 human figures, each seated cross-legged on a glyph-block. The ten to 
the right face to the left and the ten to the left face to the right; the two 
central figures face a panel of eight glyph-blocks arranged in two columns. 
This makes 10+8+10=28 glyphs for the entire text. These figures are of 
the same type as the one on Stela B, figure 36, and also as those on Altars 











1 Originally there were probably three other inscriptions in this temple, all of which are now too fragmentary 
to be deciphered: (1) the three steps in front of the temple; (2) the glyphs over the north doorway of the sanc- 
tuary; (3) the glyphs over the south doorway of the sanctuary. 


31O THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


L and Q, and they constitute a class of design all by themselves. The first 
two glyphs very clearly record the Calendar Round date 6 Caban 10 Mol, 
the month coefficient being a head-variant instead of a bar-and-dot numeral, 
as in the case of Altars V, R, and U. Seler was the first to read this date,} 
although he says nothing about its position in the Long Count. This we 
have assumed for the present to have been 9.16.12.5.17. 

There are no other decipherable glyphs on this step, although almost 
all of them are of familiar form. Attention should be called to the late form 
of the tun-sign under the third figure on the right. 

Let us next examine the four glyph-panels in the outer doorways. 
(See plate 29.) These were probably uncovered by Maudslay in 188s, 
when he made most of his excavations at Copan. He mentions them, but 
states that the stones were so much worn and displaced by trees that nothing 
could be preserved or copied.2, The damage wrought by this latter factor, 
the roots of trees, is well illustrated in plate 28, c, which shows the present 
ruinous condition of the east jamb of the north doorway.’ Note how the 
stones of the mosaic have been pried apart by the roots; some have slipped 
only a few centimeters, others have fallen out on the plaster floor of the 
vestibule and were recovered in the excavations, and still others have entirely 
disappeared. 

In 1915 the writer spent several days in Temple 11 drawing what was 
left of these panels, and, wherever possible, restoring fallen elements of the 
mosaics to their original positions in the walls. It will be seen that the 
panels in the southern doorway, at the back of the temple (a and J, plate 29) 
suffered more heavily than the panels in the northern doorway (c and 4d), 
and that the outer edges of all the panels suffered more heavily than the 
inner edges. The latter is easily accounted for by the tendency of all struc- 
tures to assume the form of a mound when they collapse; the nearer the 
center of the structure, the better being the state of preservation. 

It is more difficult, however, to explain the difference in the state of 
preservation between the two doorways; possibly the back (south facade) 
of Temple 11 stood nearer the edge of the substructure than the front (north 
facade), and when the roof collapsed the south doorway suffered greater 
damage. Or again, there may have been a roof-comb rising above the rear 
of the building. If so, its collapse would undoubtedly have done more 
damage to the back than the front. In any event, there remains much less 
of the panels in the south doorway than of those in the north doorway. 
Fortunately, the writer was able to find the lower right-hand corner of the 
panel on the west jamb of the north doorway—the only outer corner recov- 
ered—and from this it was possible to ascertain the original widths of the 
panels as having been 71 cm. ‘The tops were missing in every case, the 
maximum height now obtainable being 81 cm., in the present upper left- 





1 Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, p. 758. * Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 22. 
* The title of this panel in plate 28, c, is given incorrectly. It should read “Glyph-panel in the north doorway 
(east jamb) of Temple 11.” 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 311 


hand corner of the panel on the west jamb of the north doorway. It will 
appear later, however, that when complete these panels were probably 
about 1.5 meters high. There were four columns of glyph-blocks in each 
panel, and probably 8 glyph-blocks to a column, making 32 for each panel, 
64 for each doorway, or 128 for both doorways, probably including at least 
two Initial Series, one on each jamb of the north doorway. 

The inscription commences with the panel on the east jamb of the 
north doorway. (See plate 29,c.) As the spectator faces the temple, this 
panel is on his left, and following the usual Maya practice of reading from 
left to right and top to bottom in pairs of columns, it is probable that this is 
the order of reading here. 

The first glyph sufficiently preserved to decipher is a6, which looks like 
the kins of an Initial Series. The next is Bo,! which is6 Caban. The day- 
sign shows clearly, and also the bar of the coefficient. ‘The upper left-hand 
corner is missing, but the upper right-hand corner is preserved; the stone 
is smooth, showing there never had been a dot here. The only place a dot 
could have been was above the center of the bar, and as there is only room 
for one at this point, the coefficient could only have been 6. 

The next glyph, a7, is almost entirely gone; it looks a little like Glyph 
F of the Supplementary Series, the next, B7, is unmistakably 10 Mol, and 
B6, B7, therefore, record 6 Caban 10 Mol, the important date already found 
on the step leading into the sanctuary, and also on Altars V, R, and U. Its 
Initial Series, as already suggested, is probably 9.16.12.5.17. 

The left half of as is missing, and Bs is very clearly Glyph C of the 
Supplementary Series, here shown with a coefficient of 6, the highest value 
ever found with it. The remaining glyphs in the panel are undecipherable, 
except D7, which is 6 tuns. Note the late form of the tun-sign. The bottom 
of the glyph-panel is just 15 cm. above the plaster floor of the doorway. 

There are some indications that this date, 6 Caban to Mol, in Be, B7 is 
the terminal date of an Initial Series. In the first place, as looks very much 
as though it may have been the kins of an Initial Series number, and a7 
as though it had been Glyph F of the Supplementary Series. Finally, 3s 
is surely Glyph C of the Supplementary Series. So far as known, Supple- 
mentary Series never occur without accompanying Initial Series, and there- 
fore it seems likely that this inscription originally began with an Initial 
Series which declared the position of the important date 6 Caban ro Mol in 
the Long Count. If so, the Initial Series introducing glyph was in a1—s3, 
the cycles in a4, the katuns in B4, the tuns in as, the uinals in Bs, and the 
kins in Ao. 

Turning to the opposite panel, on the west jamb (plate 29, d), we find 
an interesting condition, namely, most if not all of its glyphs are reversed. 
This applies not only to the elements within the signs themselves, but also 
to their coefficients. Take for example u7, the fourth glyph in the first 





1 The glyphs in these four panels are designated on the basis of 4 columns of 8 glyph-blocks each; 86 therefore is 
the third to last glyph in the second column. 


312 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


column, counting from the left. Not only is its coefficient of 18 on the right, 
but the elements of the month-sign there recorded, Zac, are actually reversed. 
Note the superfix Co}, which should have the element now on the right 
on the left instead, the cross-hatched circle and concentric dots {@, which 
should be turned with its concavity to the right instead of to thetlenm 
and findly the wedge of dots ep which should be on the left of the cross- 
hatched circle instead of the right. In other words, each element has 
not only been transposed in position, but reversed in direction. 

Another case in point is the katun-sign in Hs. Not only is the coefficient 
3 on the right, but the half-circle of dots in the Cauac element of the super- 
fix is on the left instead of the right, as usual. We note the same inversion 
of the hotun-glyph in cs. Other examples of this are Hs and Fs, where the 
coefficients, 5 and 15 respectively, are reversed, and Ho and Gs, where the 
signs are reversed. 

In c7 there is a very illuminating example of this inversion. This glyph 
is clearly Glyph A of the Supplementary Series, with a coefficient of 10 on 
its /eft side. The writer has shown elsewhere (Morley, 1916, p. 372) that the 
regular position for the coefficient of Glyph A is either to the right of, or below 
the sign it modifies, that is, just the reverse of the position of all other Maya 
coefficients. In this particular panel, therefore, where all the positions are 
reversed, the coefficient of Glyph A is also reversed; that is, it appears at the 
left side of the sign it modifies, whereas its normal position is to the right or 
below. In a word, the sculptor of this text went out of his way to reverse 
the position of this particular coefficient as well as of all the others, so that it 
would be different from the others, and its necessary individuality thereby 
preserved.! 

It is apparent from the foregoing that in the delineation of the glyphs of 
this panel the elements have been intentionally reversed, those facing to the 
right having been deliberately turned to the left and vice versa, but why? 
In answering this question let us first cite one other possible parallel. 

On Stela 6, at the recently discovered city of Uaxactun, in northern 
Guatemala? (see plate 1), the last half of the Initial Series, the uinals, kins, 
day, and month, presented on the left side of the monument facing it, all have 
their coefficients on their right sides, contrary to the universal practice in these 
glyphs. The first half of this Initial Series on the opposite side of the monu- 
ment is perfectly normal, the cycle, katun, and tun coefficients appearing in 





‘With the exception of Glyph A of the Supplementary Series, three glyphs on the reviewing-stand in the 
Western Court here, and the uinals, kins, and day of the Initial Series on Stela 6 at Uaxactun, Maya coefficients 
are invariably placed either above or to the left of the signs they modify. In Glyph A, on the contrary, with but 
three known exceptions—four, if we include the present example—the coefficient is attached either to the right or 
below the sign it modifies. The reason for this, as the writer has shown in the reference cited above, was that 
the coefhcient of Glyph A is joined to the sign it modifies by addition and not by multiplication, the process by 
which all other coefficients are joined to their accompanying signs. In order to distinguish between multiplication 
and addition, a different position for the numeral modifiers was therefore adopted. Hence the inversion of the 
regular practice in Glyph A in this text. The three exceptions noted above are: Stele I and K and Structure 1 
at Quirigua, all late. 

* This site was discovered by the Carnegie Institution Central American Expedition of 1916. See Morley, 
19164, pp. 337-341. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 313 


their regular positions, on the left of the signs they modify. The only explana- 
tion for this unique feature here would appear to have been the desire to have 
both sets of coefficients appear on the sides of the glyphs adjacent to the front 
of the monument, and the only way to have achieved this was to have the 
coefficients of the glyphs on the left side stand at the right instead of the 
left of the glyphs they modify. The same desire, 7. ¢., to have the coef- 
ficients appear on the sides of the glyphs next the outside of the doorway, 
probably caused the inversion of the regular order, also noted in the panel 
under discussion, since the glyphs and their coefficients, with the single 
exception of Glyph A noted above, which itself is always an exception to the 
regular practice, all face toward the front or exterior of the temple as one 
enters the north doorway. ‘This practically unique condition has also 
apparently influenced the order of reading this text, which, as we shall 
presently see, is probably to be read from right to left and top to bottom in 
pairs of columns instead of from left to right and top to bottom in pairs of 
columns as elsewhere. ‘That is to say, the usual order of reading, as well as 
the signs themselves, has been reversed in this panel. This text therefore 
begins in the upper right-hand corner with £1 and is read in pairs of columns 
from right to left and top to bottom as follows: £1, F1, £2, F2, £3, F3, E4, F4, ES 
F5, E6, F6, E7, F7, E8, F8, Gl, H1, G2, H2, etc., on through Gs, Hs, in the lower ee 
hand corner, H8 (3 katuns) being the last glyph. By such an arrangement 
both panels could be read from the outside going in. 

The internal points of evidence tending to corroborate this order of read- 
ing are the following: The first surely decipherable glyph is rr Ahau in ua, 
and following this in Gs is a glyph which contains the essential elements of 
the first two glyphs of the Supplementary Series, G and F, brought together 
in one glyph-block, the superfix being the essential characteristic of Glyph F 
(note the careful inversion of these elements also) and the kin-sign the 
essential element of Glyph G. ‘The next glyphs, Hs, G6, and u6 are also 
probably glyphs of the Supplementary Series, since the next, G7, is Glyph A, 
the closing sign of the series. After this, that is, on its /eft, there follows in 
H7 the month 18 Zac, and finally the next glyph, cs, declares the “end of a 
hotun.” The last glyph in the panel, us, is 3 katuns, though its con- 
nection with the above date is not apparent. 

We have recorded here the two parts of a Calendar Round date, 11 Ahau 
18 Zac in H4 and H7 respectively, separated by a Supplementary Series in 
Gs-G7, and followed by a hotun-ending sign in Gs, sufficient data to fix 
this date within a period of more than 4,500 years. Referring to Goodman’s 
tables, it will be found that the only hotun in Cycle 9, or in fact for 4,500 
years, either before or after Cycle 9, which could end on the date 11 Ahau 
18 Zac was 9.14.15.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Zac, less than 40 years before the date we 
have assumed for the contemporaneous date of Temple 11. Indeed, we 
need have little hesitation in accepting the above date as the hotun-ending 
recorded here. 


Ci le: Ee THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


A more serious problem, however, is that raised by the apparent occur- 
rence of a Supplementary Series here without a corresponding Initial Series, 
which, if true, would constitute a unique example of its kind in the Maya 
inscriptions. So far as the writer knows, there is no instance on record 
where a Supplementary Series stands by itself without a corresponding 
Initial Series’. Indeed, rather than consider this text an exception to so 
universal a rule, it seems more probable that the Initial Series which went 
with this Supplementary Series was originally presented in the upper halves 
of columns c and u, which have disappeared. This would then be like the 
panel on the opposite jamb of this same doorway, where the Initial Series 
has also disappeared, save for a small part of the kin-sign. If H4, 47 does 
record an Initial Series terminal date, and if the corresponding Initial 
Series number formerly preceded H4 in columns Gc and 4, as the writer be- 
lieves, three more glyph-blocks are necessary above G4 and H4 in each column 
to have recorded the Initial Series introducing-glyph and the cycles, katuns, 
tuns, uinals, and kins of the Initial Series numbers. ‘This would have added 
another half meter to the height of the glyph-panel, making it originally be- 
tween 1.33 and 1.5 meters high. 

There are no other decipherable glyphs in this panel. The lower edge is 
again 15 cm. above the floor of the vestibule.’ 

The south doorway, as already noted, is almost entirely destroyed, very 
little of its two panels being recoverable. Standing at the back of the 
temple, and facing the doorway, the inscription begins with the panel on the 
observer’s left, that is, the one on the west jamb, which reads from left to 
right and top to bottom in pairs of columns, after the regular Maya order. 
(See plate 29, a.) Unfortunately, only the lower right-hand corner of this 
panel is preserved, and of the few glyphs left, only the last three, p7-ps, 
are recognizable. They record a Secondary Series composed of Io tuns 
(cs) (note the late form of the tun-sign), 5 uinals, and 3 kins (p7) and a glyph 
(ps) which usually closes Secondary Series. Unfortunately this number, 
though perfectly clear in itself, can not be connected with any date. 

Turning to the remaining panel, that on the east jamb (plate 29, b), 
this doubtless is to be read from the outside toward the inside, that is, from 
right to left and top to bottom in pairs of columns, like the panel on the 
west jamb of the north doorway. (Note the coefficient 9, on the right of 
Gs in the next to last column, counting from right to left, and the reversed 
elements of the last glyph, Hs, apparently the sign for Ceh.) Besides the 
latter the only other decipherable glyph is the day 3 Cib in u7. 

The inscription presented on these four panels raises several interesting 
points. First, as to the order of reading, we have seen that the priests had 
to depart from the regular left-to-right order in two of the panels, so that in 








1 Morley, 1916, p. 368. 

2 The writer regards it as particularly fortunate that he was able to recover the six pieces of the mosaic form- 
ing glyphs H4 and Gq and the upper halves of 45 and Gs, which had fallen from the wall to the floor, and to restore 
them to their original positions, thus giving the day of the hotun-ending recorded here. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 315 


entering the two exterior doorways the inscriptions on all four jambs could 
be read going in, 7. ¢., from front toward interior in each vestibule. Thus, in 
plate 29, the text begins with c in the front or north doorway, which is to be 
read from left to right and top to bottomin pairs of columns, the normal order; 
the next panel, d, is to be read from right to left and top to bottom in pairs 
of columns—an abnormal order; the next panel, a, is to be read like c again, 
and the last panel, J, like d, in short boustrophedon by panels, if we may 
borrow an analogy from Grecian epigraphy. 

Finally the record of the important date 6 Caban 10 Mol, twice in this 
temple, both times in conspicuous positions, and once probably with its 
corresponding Initial Series, coupled with the fact that no later dates have 
been found, would seem to indicate that this was the dedicatory date of 
Temple 11. If this latter is true, it is, moreover, the first time we have 
encountered this date with its accompanying Initial Series, unhappily now 
effaced, or indeed with any other date, the position of which is fixed in the 
Long Court, namely, 9.14.15.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Zac. The next occurrence of 
6 Caban 10 Mol before 9.14.15.0.0 was at 9.13.19.10.17, and the next after 
at 9.16.12.5.17.. [he former is 15 years before 9.14.15.0.0 and the latter 
37 years after. In spite of the fact that the earlier reading is the nearer here, 
as will be shown later, the latter is probably the Initial Series value originally 
intended. A summary of the text follows: 

North Doorway, east jamb Bé6, B7 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban to Mol 
North Doorway, west jamb, H4, H7,G8  9.14.15.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Zac 
End of a hotun. 
Step in north gallery leading into the 
sanctuary, first two glyphs (9.16.12.5.17) | 6Caban 10 Mol 

The first four monuments of this group, Altars V, R, U, and Temple 11, as 
we have just seen, were probably dedicated on this important date 6 Caban 
10 Mol, that is, 6 Caban 10 Mol was their contemporaneous date. ‘This is 
not true of the remaining monuments of the group, however, as already 
explained (pp. 295, 296), and these will be described in their proper places in 
the chronologic sequence. 

We have reached now the very zenith of architectural achievement at 
Copan. During the eight closing years of this katun, 9.16.12.5.17 t09.17.0.0.0, 
the Eastern and Western Courts at the Acropolis were completed in 
their final forms, and during this brief period all the temples surrounding the 
Eastern Court, Nos. 18, 19,20, 21, and 21a,were probably erected, as well as 
the handsome reviewing-stand in the Western Court (see plate 30). In- 
deed, the closing date of this period, 9.17.0.0.0, is recorded not only on two of 
these constructions, Temple 21a and the reviewing-stand, but also on two 
independent monuments, Altars Z and G;, the latter showing a recrudes- 
cence of sculptural activity in the Great Plaza for the first time in 23 years. 
From this period also probably dates Temple 22, the most magnificent build- 
ing at Copan, if indeed not in the entire Maya area, and during the follow- 
ing decade the crest of the sculptural wave was reached in Stele Gra Higaly, 


316 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


and 4. The city was at last at the flood tide of its architectural and sculp- 
tural development, a period relatively comparable to those precious few 
years of Greek art when Scopas, Phidias, and Praxiteles wielded their magic 
chisels. 

Before taking up the monuments dating from 9.17.0.0.0, it is first 
necessary to describe Temple 22, which probably is to be referred to the eight 
years between 9.16.12.5.17 and 9.17.0.0.0. 


TEMPLE 22. 


Provenance: On the north side of and facing the Eastern Court at the 
Acropolis, Main Structure. (See plate 6.) 

Datey = 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban to Mol to 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 
18 Cumhu. 


Text, (a) photograph: Gordon, 1896, plate 3, figure 2; plate 4, figure 1. 
. Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 13-15, 16, a, 17, c. 
Spinden, 1913, plate 3, 2. 
(b) drawing: Maudslay, ibid, plates 12, 16, D. 
References: Gordon, 1896, pp. 10, 17, 18. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 27-29. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 162 and table 1. 


Temple 22 stands in the middle of the terrace on the north side of the 
Eastern Court. (See plate 6.) It was excavated in 1885 by Maudslay, 
and is unquestionably the most beautiful and elaborately sculptured building 
at Copan, if, indeed, not in the entire Maya area. 

Running clear across the front is a platform, the ends of which are 
carried out at right angles to the facade, as far as the base-line of the stair- 
way ascending the substructure upon which the temple proper is built. 
(See plate 6.) Two large grotesque heads and handsomely carved wing 
stones extend from the front wall of the temple to the edge of this platform 
on either side of the stairway. A doorway 2.74 meters wide leads into an 
outer gallery 10 meters long and 3.04 meters wide; at each end of which 
there is a doorway giving into a smaller interior chamber, each 6.09 meters 
long and 3.04 meters wide. 

The spectacular feature of Temple 22 is the doorway in the north or 
back wall of this outer gallery, which gives into the inner chamber or sanctu- 
ary proper. The doorway itself is rather narrow, about 1.83 meters wide, 
but the recess in the back wall, out of which it opens, is 4.5 meters wide. 
The sill of this recess and doorway are on the same level and are 61 cm. above 
the floor-level of the outer gallery. 

The upper part of the riser is a plain projecting sill, but the lower part 
is inscribed with two horizontal bands of glyph-blocks, which are divided by 
three death’s heads into four sections of 4 glyph-blocks each, or 16 in all; 
and as each glyph-block has 2 glyphs, there are 32 glyphs in the text. At 
each end of this step is a much larger death’s head, which projects beyond the 
riser of the step proper. ‘These serve as pedestals to support two crouching 
human figures of heroic size, which in turn support on their upraised 
hands the two heads of a reptilian monster, whose body curls upward in 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. Ly 


bewildering ramifications and presumably joined over the middle of the 
doorway. Maudslay’s restoration of this sculpture (1889-1902, vol. 1, 
plate 12) gives an excellent idea of its character and former magnificence. 

The chamber into which such an imposing entrance gave access must 
indeed have been of peculiar sanctity, even though it is quite plain. It ran 
the entire length of the building, being 21.33 meters long. The ends are 
rather narrow, not more than 1.75 meters wide, but the middle section is 
about 3.66 meters wide. (See plate6.) During the course of its excavation 
two stone incense-burners carved in the semblance of grotesque heads, to- 
gether with some charcoal, were found on the floor. Holes through the 
jambs and sill of the doorway permitted the hanging of curtains across the 
opening, thus shutting off this Holy of Holies from the profane during secret 
parts of the ceremonies practiced herein. 

The inscribed step, in spite of the fact that it presents 32 glyphs, in an 
excellent state of preservation, has only two of a decipherable nature, the 
first and the last. [he former is the day 5 Lamat and the latter the day 5 
Eb. No month-sign accompanies either, and since both recurred at inter- 
vals of 260 days throughout the Long Count, in order to date this temple 
even approximately we are forced to rely upon other evidence, such as the 
stylistic criteria, or its position with reference to Temple 21a, which is 
datable. Froms5 Lamat to 5 Ebisa period of 104 days or just two-fifths of a 
tonalamatl. The nearest occurrence of either of these days to 9.17.0.0.0 
13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, the date of Temple 21a, was 9.16.19.17.12 5 Eb 10 
Cumhu, which was only 8 days earlier. If this is the correct date for the 
latter of these two days, the first is probably 5 Lamat 6 Mac, viz, 9.16.19.12.8 
5 Lamat 6 Mac, 104 days earlier. Where the record is so abbreviated that 
even the corresponding month-parts of the days are wanting, it is idle to 
attempt to fix such dates accurately, and the readings suggested can not be 
regarded as in any sense definitive. 

Spinden claims with considerable assurance that the sculpture in Temple 
22 is the best at Copan: “The most beautiful and perfect sculptures at 
Copan are those that served to decorate the facade of Temple 22.’"' He also 
sees certain very close resemblances between Temple 22 and Stela H: “[Tem- 
ple 22] decorated by fringe of beautiful human heads showing remarkable 
similarity to face of Stela H.’”? As will appear later, the date of Stela H is 
probably 9.17.12.0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan; therefore, if Spinden is correct here, 
Temple 22 would be later than Temple 214, since the latter was dedicated 
ing.17.0.0.0. Gordon, ontheother hand, offers excellent reasons for believing 
that this is not the case: 

“The excavation of Mound 21 brought to light an interesting building [Temple 


21a] occupying the space between Mounds 21 and 22, its walls abutting those of 
the two mounds. Although neither so large nor so elaborate as Temple 22, and 








1 Spinden, 1913, p. 162. A fragment from this temple is in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge. It is a 
human head of exceeding beauty. See Spinden, ibid., plate 23, 2. 
2 Spinden, 1913, table 1, Temple 22. 


318 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


apparently of less importance, it is one of the largest and most prominent of the 
temples. From the manner of contact of its walls with those of the mounds, it 
seems to have been of later construction.”? 


An examination of the abutting walls mentioned above led the writer 
to the same conclusion, in spite of Spinden’s analysis of the stylistic criteria. 
Moreover, its position with reference to the Eastern Court would appear 
to indicate that Temple 22 was built before Temple 21a, since the former 
occupies the middle of the north side of the court (see plate 6), Temple 21 
being built at the northeast corner, possibly at the same time that Temple 22 
was going up opposite the middle of the north side; and later Temple 21a 
was crowded in between the two. But Temple 21a dates from 9.17.0.0.0, and 
since Temple 22 is certainly not earlier than Temple 11, we may therefore fix 
its date to within 7 years, 2.e., as being not earlier than 9.16.12.5.17 (fem- 
ple 11), nor later than 9.17.0.0.0 (Temple 21a). 


TEMPLE 21d. 


Provenance: Between Temples 21 and 22, at the northeastern cor- 
ner of the Eastern Court at the Acropolis, Main 
Structure. (See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu.? 
Text, (a2) photograph: plate 31. 
Gordon, 1896, plate 3, figure 2, and plate 4, figure 1. 
Spinden, 1913, plate 3, 2. 
(b) drawing: plate 31. 
Reference: Gordon, 1896, pp. 18, 19. 


Temple 21a, although one of the largest buildings at Copan, entirely 
escaped Maudslay’s attention, and its existence was made known only by 
the excavations of the Peabody Museum. ‘This oversight was doubtless due 
to its inconspicuous location between the two larger, higher, and more 
imposing buildings, Temples 21 and 22. Indeed, as we have just seen, its 
walls actually abut against those of the substructures of Temples 21 and 22, 
the nature of the contact being such as to indicate that Temple 21a is the 
most recent of the three.* It is fortunate, therefore, that its date has been 
surely deciphered. 

The excavation of Temple 21a brought to light the following facts: 
The facade is now gone. A doorway 2.13 meters wide gives entrance to an 
outer gallery 7.62 meters long and 2.13 meters wide, the floor of which is 30 
cm. higher than the level of the terrace outside. At the eastern end of this 
chamber is a raised bench 1.52 meters wide, approached by a step 20 cm. 
wide. At the western end there is a square niche in the wall. In the 
middle of the northern wall and opposite the entrance is a doorway (plate 
31) 2.44 meters wide, leading into the back chamber, which is of the same 
size as the outer chamber, the floor being 61 cm. higher. ‘This makes a 
step at the threshold of the inner doorway, the upper course of which 








1 See Gordon, 1896, p. 18, and plate 4, 1, where this relationship appears very clearly. 
2 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 
3 Gordon, 1896, p. 18, and plate 4, 1. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 319 


projects 8 cm. beyond the plane of the riser.and is 19 cm. high. The face 
of this sill is sculptured with a single band of glyphs interrupted by three 
pairs of circular decorative elements (see plate 31), one in the middle of the 
doorway and one at each end. The writer is inclined to regard these ele- 
ments as the familiar sign for Venus, perhaps indicating that this building 
was dedicated to the worship of that planet. Possibly it may even be called 
the Temple of Venus. The glyphs extend half a meter on either side of the 
doorway beyond the jambs. So far as one can now judge, there were no 
other interior sculptures, although the roof has collapsed, carrying with 
it all the masonry above the doorway. 

There are 3 glyph-blocks to the left and 3 to the right of the left and 
right Venus-signs respectively, and 5 glyph-blocks to the left and 5 to the 
right of the middle Venus-sign, making a total of 16 for the entire inscrip- 
tion. (See plate 31.) 

The first decipherable sign is at E, which records the day 6 Ahau. 
Although the next glyph, F, looks like the corresponding month ? Zotz, it is 
not, being the familiar Zotz head with the Ben-Ik superfix; indeed, the month 
corresponding to this day is not recorded. The next decipherable glyph, 1d, 
is just to the right of the middle Venus-sign, and may record 2 Ahau (?). 
The next is N, which records a Secondary Series number composed of tuns, 
uinals, and kins, and following this in od, pa is the Calendar Round date 13 
Ahau 18 Cumhu and an ending-sign at pb. This date occurred but twice 
in the Long Count during the Great Period, namely, at 9.17.0.0.0 and 
9.19.12.13.0. Since the former ends not only a tun but also a hotun and 
katun as well, it was doubtless the value intended here, which we may there- 
fore accept as the date of Temple 21a. 

We would appear to have here, then, a day 6 Ahau, £, preceding 
9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, od, pa, by the number in nN. Unfortunately the 
coefficients above the uinal and tun-signs in N are almost entirely destroyed. 
One thing, however, is evident at the outset. If the day in £ is 6 Ahau, and 
it can hardly have been anything else, the coefficient to the left of the uinal- 
sign can not be the kin coefficient as usual, but must be the uinal coefficient, 
since 2 counted either forward or backward from Ahau will not reach Ahau. 
It matters not whether 6 Ahau or 13 Ahau be the starting-point. 

The coefficient above the uinal-sign is indistinct, ( \_, but it can hardly 
have been a bar-and-dot numeral, however, with the possible exception of 2, 
which we have seen is an impossible value here. Indeed, the only other 
~ reading left is o, which would agree with the fact that the two days recorded 
are the same. Probably, then, the uinals and kins are 2 and o respectively, 
an inversion of the regular order.! 

The tun coefficient is almost surely under 11. Whatever it is, it must 
be such that when reduced to kins and added to the uinals reduced to kins, 
the remainder after division by 13 will be 7; since 7 is the only number which 











1 See Altar U, a2, for an example of this kind, p. 301. 


320 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


will give 13, the coefficient of the day of the terminal date, ob, when added to 
6, the coefficient of the day of the starting-point, E. The only tun coefficient 
under 11 fulfilling these necessary conditions is 5, and 5.2.0 counted back- 
ward from 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu will give 6 Ahau 3 Cumhu, the position of 
which in the Long Count can be shown to have been 9.16.14.16.0: 

ob,Pa 9.17. 0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu 

N 5. 2.0 backward 

E 9.16.14.16.0 6 Ahau (3 Cumhu) 

One other much higher value of the tun coefficient will also give a remain- 
der of 7, namely, 18, but this is so high that it hardly could have been 
crowded into the space available in Nb. (See Nd, plate 31.) Note, for ex- 
ample, where 18 is recorded as the coefficient of the month in pa, the sign 
for Cumhu occupies scarcely more than a half of the space tobe filled, whereas 
the tun-sign in Nd fills nearly three-quarters of the space available. \ 

Although the point can not be proved, owing to the partial destruction 
of N, it seems probable that E indicates the date 9.16.14.16.0 6 Ahau 3 Cumhu, 
which is less than two years later than the terminal date of the Secondary 
Series on the pedestal of Stela N (see p. 288) and less than three years later 
than the important date 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol so generally recorded 
here at Copan. The second and closing date we may safely accept as 
9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, which doubtless represents the dedicatory date 
of the temple. 

There is another interesting possibility here, though it is scarcely more, 
unfortunately, since if it were true, it would have fixed the position of the im- 
portant date 6 Caban 10 Mol to its proper position in the Long Count beyond 
any doubt. It is possible that E may be the day 6 Caban instead of 6 Ahau, 
and as used here it might be an abbreviation for the important date 6 Caban 
10 Mol, indicating the starting-point of the count in N, which would then 
become 7.12.3, and would exactly express the distance from 6 Caban 1o Mol 
to 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, viz: 

| E (9.16.12: -§17) 6 Caban (10 Mol) 
N FN 2 
ob,Pa (9.17. 0. 0. 0) 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu 

If n in this text could only be read as 7.12.3 1t would most satisfactorily 
clear away any doubt as to the true position in the Long Count of the partic- 
ular 6 Caban 10 Mol so frequently encountered in the Copan inscriptions. 

The day-sign in E may easily be a head-variant for Caban with the 
Caban curl appearing on the cheek of the head inside the day-sign cartouche, 
exactly as in the case of the day-sign of the Initial Series terminal date at 
B7 on the west side of Stela D at Quirigua, where the day 8 Caban is recorded.! 
The cheek of the face in £, plate 31, is partially effaced, and such a curl may 








1 Another analogous case is presented by glyph Ka u. h. on Zoémorph G at Quirigua, where the day Ik 
is recorded, the Ik element, which resembles the letter [, being applied to the cheek of the human head in the day- 
sign cartouche. (Maudslay 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 42 and 44.) 


PLATE 36 
MORLEY 


(oF hod 
D 


yy 






Hiefoglyphic steps on the south side of the substructure of Temple 11. Drawn from the original 


: = 
Scale 1/20 ’ 
i > 
i - : 3 
| | ' i 
| : . 





INSCRIPTIONS. OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 321 


have been recorded here originally. The real obstacle to such a decipher- 
ment of glyphs E and n, however, lies in the coefficient to the left of the 
uinal-sign in Na, plate 31, which almost certainly is 2, not 3. “The writer 
examined this glyph closely with this very point in mind and was forced to 
conclude that the central-dot was, and always had been, an ornamental 
non-numerical crescent. 

If it is assumed that a piece has been broken out of it, and that formerly. 
it was just like the two outside dots in shape and size, which interpretation, 
however, the writer believes demands too much of the original, the rest of 
this decipherment becomes an easy matter. The uinal coefficient in ob 
occupies more space than the tun coefficient in pa, and the former may well 
have been 12, 7. ¢., having space for not more than 3 bars; and the latter, 7, 
1. €., having space for not more than 2 bars. All things considered, however, 
it seems best to reject this interesting Be Sey and to stand ie the first 
interpretation suggested. 


THe REVIEWING-STAND IN THE WESTERN CourrT. 


Provenance: At the northern side of the Western Court, built against 
the base of the substructure of Temple 11, at the 
Acropolis, Main Structure. (See plate 6.) 

Date: g.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu.! 

Text, drawing: plate 30. 


At the northern end of the Western Court, built.against the base of the 
lofty substructure supporting Temple 11, is a reviewing-stand of four tiers 
of seats, 16.5 meters long and 2 meters high. (See plate 30.) The back of 
‘the top seat is sculptured with a band of glyphs running from end to end and 
only interrupted by the large central ornament, a human head and shoulders, 
now badly defaced. On,each end of this band there is a large human figure 
kneeling on one knee, facing toward the center, and holding in one hand a 
torch-like object, the top of which in each case has unhappily disappeared, 
as also both of the heads. A pair of intertwining serpents, probably the 
rattlesnake, as the tails seem to show the typical Maya treatment of rattles, 
forms the necklace of each, and a larger serpent with protruding tongue, 
falling in a graceful curl, the tail hanging below, forms the belt. But for 
these decorations the figures are nude, not even having sandals, wristlets, 
or anklets. These figures are large seasinnea mosaics let into the steep 
batter of the substructure of Temple 11. The western one is in slightly 
better condition than the eastern one, 7. ¢.,in the latter the forearm and torch- 
like object have disappeared, but it is evident that both were bilaterally 
symmetrical with reference to a vertical axis through the ornament in the 
center of the stand. Owing to the mosaic feature of their construction, they 
were peculiarly prone to destruction,.and it is remarkable that so much has 
survived the ravages of time. 








1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


322 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The figures stand 1 meter high, and allowing for the now missing heads, 
and the doubtless elaborate head-dresses, they must originally have been at 
least 0.75 meter higher, or close to 2 meters for the height of the design above 
the hieroglyphic band. 

On the level of the top seat at each end of the stand there projects a 
pler, its vertical face flush with the back of the second seat. (See plate 30.) 
The top of each is sculptured with 2 glyphs and the face with 2, making 4 
for each pier. There are 15% glyph-blocks on each side of the central 
ornament, and these, with those on the flanking piers, make 4+15%+15% 
+4=39 for the entire text. This imposing construction is clearly not a 
stairway, since it leads nowhere, the riser of what would be the fifth step 
(the back of the fourth tier of seats) merging into the steep slope of the 
substructure of Temple 11. Moreover, these seats or steps are not placed 
directly in line with the back doorway of Temple 11 above, but, on the con- 
trary, they are in the middle of the north side of the Western Court, of which 
they command an excellent view. A glance at the map in plate 6 will 
establish their correlation with the Western Court rather than with Temple 
11 beyond any doubt, and will indicate their true function as a reviewing- 
stand for spectacles, ceremonies, comedies, dances, and the like, which were 
held in this court.1_ Allowing half a meter for each spectator, this stand 
would have accommodated about 150 people; probably only the elect of the 
city were privileged to sit here. 

When the writer first visited Copan in 1910 only the eastern third of 
this stand had been excavated, 7. ¢., the last 11 glyph-blocks, apparently 
where the work of the Peabody Museum had been suspended. In 1912, 
while he was at Copan with Morris, another 41% glyph-blocks were uncovered 
and the central ornament exposed. It was not until 1915, however, that the 
left half of the stand was cleared of the débris fallen from Temple 11 above, 
under which it was deeply buried, and the whole construction brought to 
light, photographs of it taken, and the inscription copied. 

Coming next to the consideration of the inscription, another interesting 
example of glyphic inversion for the sake of bilateral symmetry, as in the 
northern and southern doorways of Temple 11, may be noted. Three of the 
glyphs on the left, a1 on the back of the top seat, and a2b and a4 on the left 
pier all have their heads facing to the right, 2.¢., toward the center of the 
stairway, and the third, a4, clearly the day Ahau, also has its coefficient on 
itsright. This is an unmistakable inversion of the usual practice, doubt- 
less due to the desire to have the glyphs on the two piers face each other 
and balance. 

The first glyph, a1, is of unknown meaning. It would appear not to be 
a day, since the cartouche and trinal support are wanting and the coefficient 

1 Landa, in describing the ruins of Chichen Itza, northern Yucatan (see plate 1), states that the Maya had 
theaters: “At some distance in front of the stairway on the north there are two small theaters of stone with four 
staircases, paved on top, where they say that farces were represented, and comedies for the pleasure of the people.” 


(1881, p. 105.) Similar mounds, 7.¢., with stairways on one, two, or four sides and apparently without super- 
structures, are found throughout the Maya‘ area. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 323 


8 is at the bottom. Can it represent some new count of which nothing is 
yet known? The glyphs on the top of the pier a2, a3 are indecipherable, but 
A4 is very clearly the day 8 Ahau, both the coefficient and head being 
reversed in position, as noted above. 

The next glyph is very puzzling. The tun-sign appears very clearly 
as the main element with a coefficient of 10! to the left. It is evident that 
some coefficient and period-glyph have been suppressed here, since there are 
only two coefficients present, and the single period-glyph recorded is the tun- 
sign. Unfortunately, the writer has been unable to connect this number 
with any other date in the text. 

In B1 is recorded 13 Zip, and this doubtless belongs with the day 8 Ahau 
in A4, giving the date 8 Ahau 13 Zip. There are no other decipherable glyphs 
on this side of the central ornament, although a few are of familiar form, like 
ji, which is the Zotz head. At gi, r1, to the right of the central ornament, is 
the date 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, and following this in u1, vi, the date 8 Ahau 
13 Zip, repeated again. Finally, the last two glyphs in the text, £’4, g's, 
record the date 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu. 

We have here, then, four Calendar Round dates, 4, B1, 01d, R1, U1, V1, 
and £4, E's, without, however, the accompanying record of where any one 
belongs in the Long Count. The second and fourth are the familiar date 
13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, which we have already seen is almost certainly 
g.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, and we may feel sure that wherever the 
other two dates may be, the second and fourth are the contemporaneous 
and probably the dedicatory date of the stand. 

The third date is probably 8 Ahau 13 Zip, the month being the unusual 
variant found only in two other inscriptions, namely, Altar L and Stela N, 
already described. ‘The fact that the first date is also almost certainly 8 
Ahau 13 Zip—the month in B1 1s surely 13 Zip—strongly corroborates this 
identification of the month-sign in v1 as Zip. 

The next question is, where did the latter date occur in the Long Count 
nearest 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu. It can be shown by calculation that 
8 Ahau 13 Zip occurred only 3 uinals (60 days) later than the above katun- 
ending, namely, at 9.17.0.3.0 8 Ahau 13 Zip, and this, therefore, is probably 
the Initial Series value corresponding with the first and third dates, although 
the number 3.0 appears nowhere in the inscription. We will see in the de- 
scription of Altar Q (p. 328) that a similar condition prevailed on this monu- 
ment also. In the case of Altar Q the count overlaps the hotun-ending the 
altar was erected to commemorate, 9.17.5.0.0, by only 4 days more, 1. ¢., 3.4. 








1 An inaccuracy should be noted here in the drawing of the four glyphs on the faces of these two piers, A4, A5 
and x’4,8’s5, in plate 30. The two upper glyphs, aq and k&’4, the days 8 Ahau and 13 Ahau respectively com- 
pletely fill the face of the pier in each case, leaving no unsculptured band, at the left and right respectively, as 
shown in plate 30, in which respect they differ from the three glyphs above and the one below in each case, AI, A2, 
A3,and as on the left-hand pier, and k’1, £’2, £’3,and £’5 on the right-hand pier. The two bottom glyphs, a5 and 
Es’ have this plain unsculptured band on their left and right sides respectively, the right and left sides being the 
plain back of the second seat. As shown in plate 30, a5 has a coefficient of 15. From the photograph, however, 
it is apparent that the left bar is not numerical, but is this plain, unsculptured band. The coefficient here, there- 
fore, is 10 instead of 15, as shown in plate 30. 


324 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


ALTAR Z. 
Provenance: On the terrace between the Eastern and Western Courts 
just east of Temple 11 at the Acropolis, Main Structure. 
(See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau18 Cumhu.! 


Text, (a) photograph: Cone 1896, figures 9-12. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 113, a.? 
(b) drawing: §Maudslay, ibid., plate 112, f-1. 
Morley, 1915, figure 83, d. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, p. 136. 
Gordon, 1896, pp. 13, 42. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 68. 
Morley, 1915, p. 242. 


Altar Z is a small rectangular block of stone 56 cm. long, 46 cm. wide, 
and 76 cm. high. The front is carved with a grotesque head, the back and 
sides with glyphs, 6 glyph-blocks on a side, or 18 in all. This monument was 
excavated in 1893 by the Second Peabody Museum Expedition from near 
the northeast corner of a low mound on the high terrace between the Eastern 
and Western Courts. It faces east. (See plate 6.) 

The inscription opens on the north side (the right facing the altar) 
with a number in Al, B1 composed of 1.8.1; and in the next glyphs but one, 
B2, A3, are the Calendar Round date 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, followed by an ending- 
sign at B3. We have just seen that this date was recorded in Temple 21a 
and on the reviewing-stand in the Western Court, both within a stone’s throw 
of this monument, and further, that Temple 11, even nearer (see plate 6), 
has a date less than 8 years earlier; we are therefore justified in assuming 
that the 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu here recorded is probably, indeed almost cer- 
tainly, 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, although the Katun 17 itself is not 
expressed. If this is true, the starting-point of the number, 1.8.1, in Al, B1 
can be shown by calculation to have been 9.16.18.9.19 12 Cauac 2 Zac, as 
follows: 


9.17. 0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu 
1.8. 1 backward 
9:16.18.9.19 — 12'Ganat 2 Zac 


There are several other glyphs of known form, though of unknown mean- 
ing, on the back and south side. The close connection between this altar 
and Temple 21a and the reviewing-stand in the Western Court is further 
established by the’ number of the same non-calendric glyphs found in 
all three. 

This altar was doubtless dedicated in 9.17.0.0.0, along with other 
monuments and temples erected to commemorate this important katun- 
ending. 


1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 

2 There is a curious error in Maudslay’s reproduction of this altar. The print published seems to have been 
made from the wrong side of the negative; thus all the coefficients are on the right-hand sides of the glyphs instead 
of the left. Gordon’s photographs, however (1896, figures 9-12), show the correct presentation of both the front 
and north side. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 325 


ALTAR G3. 
Provenance: In the Great Plaza at the Main Structure between 
Stela F and H. (See plate 6.) 
Date: g.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu.! 


Text, (2) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 116, 117. 
(b) drawing: Ibid, 114, K. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, table 29. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 49, 69. 
Spinden, 1913, table 1. 


Altar G; is one of a group of three monuments called by Maudslay 
Altars G. Stephens describes this altar and G, and G, as follows: ‘‘a mass 
of fallen sculpture with an altar marked R on the map.’” 

These three sculptures are not only very similar in style, particularly 
G; and G»., which are almost twin pieces, but they differ from every other 
monument in the city, with the single exception of Altar O, which unfortu- 
nately has no glyphs, and can not be dated. 

Curiously enough, although G; and G; are almost identical in size, shape, 
and treatment, the nearest occurrences of their respective Calendar Round 
dates in the Long Count are 25 years apart, while Altars G, and G,, on the 
other hand, though presenting greater stylistic divergences, are within 5 
years of each other. 

Altar Gs is a narrow slab of stone 1.83 meters long, 25 cm. thick, and 
1.09 meters high. The subject portrayed is a double-headed monster of 
serpentine character, whose body arches upward, making a hump in the 
middle. Just below the top of this hump and in the bend of the serpent’s 
body on each side is a panel of 4 glyph-blocks, or 8 for the entire inscription. 
Unfortunately the panel on the south side has entirely scaled off. 

The glyphs on the north side, though badly cracked, are all exceedingly 
clear, and unmistakably record two Calendar Round dates: 7 Ahau 18 Pop 
at Al, B1 and 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu at a2, B2. There are no ending-signs or 
prefixes or period-glyphs present, only these two Calendar Round dates, 
which occurred but twice during the Great Period, namely, at 9.16.15.0.0 
7 Ahau 18 Pop and 9.19.7.13.0 7 Ahau 18 Pop and 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 
Cumhu and 9.19.12.13.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu. It is apparent at a glance 
that the first in each set is the date intended here. To begin with, they 
mark the ends of two successive hotuns in the Long Count, sufficient reason 
alone to accept the earlier reading in each case; and second, both the later 
readings are too late to be historically probable at Copan; and finally, we 
have seen that the later date, 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, is recorded in three other 
places at Copan: Temple 214, the reviewing-stand in the Western Court, 
and Altar Z, where it almost certainly has the Initial Series value, 9.17.0.0.0. 

It can hardly be doubted, then, that Altar G; was erected to commemorate 
the hotun-ending 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, also a katun-ending as well, 
and the record of the previous hotun-ending 9.16.15.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Pop 


1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 
2 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, map facing p. 133, and p. 152. 


326 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


serves to further emphasize the fact. It is unfortunate that the four glyphs 
on the other side are entirely destroyed, although it is hardly possible that 
they could have contained matter which would have jeopardized the accu- 
racy of the above conclusions. 


ALTAR Q. 
Provenance: In the Western Court, at the western base of Mound 16 at 
the Acropolis, Main Structure. (See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.17.5.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Kayab.! 


Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 90, 91, 93, 4. 
(b) drawing: _[bid, plates 92, 93, b ; 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 141 and 2 plates opposite p. 142. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 135, 185, and table 29. 
Galindo 1834, Appendix XI, p. 597. 
Galindo 18354, p. 548. 
Goodman, 1897, pp. 133,134. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 15. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 60. 
Seler, 1902-1908, p. 758. 
Spinden, 1913, p. 162 and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, pp. 140-142. 
Thomas, 1900, pp. 787, 788. 

Altar Q is first mentioned by Galindo, whose admiration it excited 
sufficiently to call forth a rather detailed description.? It stands on the 
eastern side of the Western Court between the double stairway ascending 
the western slope of Mound 16, with which it is obviously correlated. 
Stephens gives it the letter A in his map.° 

This monument is a rectangular block of stone, 1.42 meters square and 
74 cm. high, resting on four roughly spherical supports. 

The four sides are sculptured with human figures seated cross-legged 
on glyphs, the figures being of exactly the same type as those on Stela B, 
Altar L, and more particularly like those on the step in the outer gallery of 
Temple 11. Indeed, Spinden believes Altar Q and the step in Temple 11 
were executed by the same hand: 

“The carvings on the interior step of this building (Temple 11) are of the same 
style as those on some of the independent altars, notably Altars 1 and Q, and are 
probably the work of the same sculptor.’ 


Whether this is true or not the writer is not prepared to say. However, 
the two sculptures are very similar in style, treatment, and technique, and, 
as will appear presently, it is quite possible they may have been the work of 
the same sculptor, since they are only 13 years apart. 

The seated figures on these two sculptures show closer resemblances to 
each other than do any other two monuments having this same decorative 
treatment, 2. ¢., Stela B, Altars L, Q, T, and 5, and the step in Temple 11, 
and this, coupled with their chronological proximity, renders Spinden’s claim 
not improbable. 





1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 
2 Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 597, and 18354, p. 548. 
3 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, map facing p. 133 and pp. 140-142. 4 Spinden, 1913, p. 162. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. B27 


There are four of these seated human figures on a side, or sixteen in all. 
The four on the front or west side face a center panel of two glyphs, two 
figures on either side. ‘The four figures on the south side and the four on 
the back (the east side) all face the same way as the two figures on the right 
of the glyph-panel on the front. The four on the north side, however, face 
in the opposite direction. Thus, ten of the figures face to the left and six 
to the right. 

The top is entirely covered with glyphs. These are arranged in 6 
columns of 6 glyph-blocks each, or 36 in all. Including the 16 on which the 
figures are seated and the 2 on the front, there is a total of 6+4+4+4+36= 
54 for the entire text. 

The prominence of the date 6 Caban 10 Mol is again emphasized on 
this altar, the single pair of glyphs in the glyph-panel on the front recording 
this date. This is the most conspicuous position on the altar, and the fact 
that this date is inscribed here is but another indication of its supreme 
importance. We will assume for the present that its corresponding Initial 
Series was 9.16.12.5.17. The inscription on the top opens with the date 5 
Caban 15 Yaxkin in al, B1. This occurred during the Great Period at 
9.15.6.16.17 and 9.17.19.11.17. For reasons to follow, the former will be 
found to be the better reading here. 

The next date, 8 Ahau 18 Yaxkin, is in B3, A4._ This is only 3 days later 
than the preceding date, and its corresponding Initial Series is therefore 
probably 9.15.6.17.0. Following this, at a6, is a number composed of 7 
uinals and 12 kins, and if this is counted forward from 8 Ahau 18 Yaxkin, 
the date reached will be 4 Eb 10 Muan. ‘This date is nowhere to be found 
in the inscription, but the day following it, 5 Ben 11 Muan, is recorded at 
ci, D1. It seems certain, therefore, that we have an error in the original 
here: 12 kins, 7. e., two bars and two dots, being recorded for 13, 7. ¢., two 
bars and three dots in ao.!. The Initial Series of this latter date can be 
shown by calculation to have been 9.15.7.6.13. 

The next calendric glyphs are co, £1, the most important in the inscrip- 
tion, since they tend to prove that the Initial Series of 6 Caban 10 Mol was 
9.16.12.5.17, and also indicate the hotun-ending this altar was erected to 
commemorate. cé is very clearly Katun 17 without an ending-sign, how- 
ever; and p6, £1, the date 6 Ahau 13 Kayab. The natural assumption here 
is that Katun 17 ended on the day 6 Ahau 13 Kayab, but by referring to 
Goodman’s tables it will be found that this katun ended on 13 Ahau 18 
Cumhu, viz, 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau18 Cumhu. The following hotun, however, 
namely, 9.17.5.0.0, did end on 6 Ahau 13 Kayab, as recorded in p6, £1. Here 
we have an interesting though unusual condition. The “Katun 17” in 
c6 is not to be interpreted as ending on the date following it, but was prob- 





1 An examination of the cast of this altar in the Peabody Museum shows the 0 original has 12 kins instead 
of 13. Two bars and two dots are recorded with a flattened >< between the two dots. x This is obviously an error 
in the original, however, since 13 and not 12 kins are necessary to reach the day Ben in c1 from Ahau in B3; 
and 153 days and not 152 are necessary to reach 11 Muan from 18 Yaxkin—a QUU double check. 


328 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


ably recorded to indicate that the count had to pass through Katun 17 in 
order to reach the contemporaneous date of the monument. In other words, 
Katun 17 was the nearest katun-ending before the date recorded. 

A similar case has already been noted on the lower hieroglyphic step 
of Mound 2, where the count starts with Katun 15, followed by the date 
1 Ahau 8 Xul. This, we have seen (pp. 234, 235), did not indicate that 
Katun 15 ended on 1 Ahau 8 Xul, but that Katun 15 was the katun-end- 
ing preceding this date, 9.15.17.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Xul.' It will be noted that 
in both these cases the katun-sign is unaccompanied by an ending-sign. 
This is as it should be, however, if the interpretations suggested are correct, 
since in neither case is the katun recorded the contemporaneous date, the 
latter in each case being one of the subdivisions of the following katun. 

After 9.15.7.6.13 5 Ben 11 Muan in ci, p1 the count seems to have 
passed through the important date 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol on the front 
of the altar, and through 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu in cé to 9.17.5.0.0 
6 Ahau 13 Kayab in po, £1, the current hotun-ending. This hotun-ending, 
however, is not the final date on Altar Q, as there is a short number of 3.4 
(64 days) in ES, carrying the count that distance beyond 9.17.5.0.0; and this 
is followed by the date 5 Kan 13 Uoin £6. ‘The latter is obviously incorrect, 
since a day Kan can only have a corresponding month coefficient of 2, 7, 12, 
or 17. Probably 12 is the value originally intended here, for if 3.4 is counted 
forward from 6 Ahau 13 Kayab, the date reached will be 5 Kan12 Uo2 It 
is a curious coincidence that the two errors in this text, the kin coefficient 
in a6 and the month coefficient in £6 |. h. are the exact reverse of each 
other, the former being a 12 for a 13 and the latter a 13 for a 12. This 
coincidence may possibly explain their presence here, that is, the sculptor 
may have forgotten himself, carving 12 in a6 instead of in £61. h., and 13 
in E61. h. instead of in a6. 

The record of a date later than the hotun-ending the monument was 
erected to commemorate, while not unknown, is rare enough to cause 
comment. Several other examples, both here at Copan and elsewhere, are 
described in connection with the next monument, Altar W’, which also has 
this same feature. ‘The practice seems to have been fairly general, and in 
all the examples there cited the count overlaps the current hotun-ending by 
less than a year. Doubtless 9.17.5.3.4 was a date, which it was desired to 
commemorate on Altar Q, and its distance beyond the current hotun-ending 
being so short, the count was allowed to lap over by that much, without 
destroying the character of Altar Q as a hotun-marker. A summary of the 
text follows. 





1 The writer suggests with some hesitation a third case which may have an analogous construction, namely, 
Stela C at Nakum. In this text there is the Calendar Round date 2 Ahau 8 Yaxkin at a1, A2, and following in as, 
rotuns. This date occurs at 9.19.10.1.0 2 Ahau 8 Yaxkin, and the 10 tuns in As may record the fact that a Tun 
10 had just passed when it was recorded, 1.¢., 20 days (1 uinal) before. 

2 The cast in the Peabody Museum shows the month coefhcient is 13. This is obviously an error in the 
original, since the day Kan never could have had a month coefficient of 13 in any month; #2 is the nearest value 
possible, and, moreover, is indicated by the accompanying calculations, 5 Kan 12 Uo being exactly 3.4 later than 
6 Ahau 13 Kayab, as noted above. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 329 


Top; Atj Br’) 9.15<.6.16.17 5 Caban 15 Yaxkin 
(3) not recorded 
Top, 84,44, 0.157 0,17. 0 8 Ahau 18 Yaxkin 
Top, a6 7.13" 
Tope Crap none. '7o5 0.14 5 Ben 11 Muan 
(1. 4.17. 4) not recorded 
Front 9.16.12. 5:17 6 Caban 10 Mol 
(7.12. 3) not recorded 
Top, cé6 9.17. 0.0.0 (13 Ahau 18 Cumhu) 
(5. 0. 0) not recorded 
Top, D6,E1 9.17. 5.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Kayab 
Top, Es hae | 
Top E6 oN ea ig 5 Kan 12? Uo 

The first three dates are all less than a year later than 9.15.6.14.6 
6 Cimi 4 Tzec (Date 11 on the Hieroglyphic Stairway); indeed, the first 
date above is only 51 days later. ‘This date, we have also seen, occurs four 
times at the neighboring city of Quirigua, and doubtless corresponds with an 
important event in the history of both sites. After these first three dates 
there is a gap of over a katun, as on Altar U (see p. 305), at the end of which 
occurs the important date 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol, especially empha- 
sized here by being the only date on the front of the altar. The preceding 
katun-ending, namely, 9.17.0.0.0, is next recorded, and then the current 
hotun-ending 9.17.5.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Kayab, the contemporaneous date of 
the altar. And finally, there is a date 9.17.5.3.4 5 Kan 12 Uo, 64 days later. 
It should be noted that of the six dates actually recorded on Altar Q, three 
have a day coefficient of 5. 

With the completion and dedication of Altar Q and probably Temple 16, 
architectural as well as sculptural activity probably ceased in the Western and 
Eastern Courts; at least no later dates have been found on the Acropolis.’ 

One more point in connection with the Western Court remains to be 
considered. Stela P, recording the very early date 9.9.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Pop, 
it will be remembered (see p. 115), stands in the Western Court, not far 
from Altar Q. We have seen that the structures surrounding the Eastern 
and Western Courts were probably not commenced prior to 9.16.10.0.0 or 
at least 9.16.0.0.0, and while it is doubtless true that there were older 
buildings in this part of the city—indeed, the cross-section of the Acropolis 
made by the river shows older plaza levels and walls—the final floor-levels 
of the Western and Eastern Courts were probably not established prior to 
g.16.0.0.0, or possibly even later. Obviously, then, Stela P, with a date 
nearly 150 years earlier, is not in its original position, but must have been 
moved to the Western Court after the completion of the latter in 9.17.0.0.0. 
The same also applies to Altars H’ and I’ at the southern end of the court, 
which are 80 years earlier than the reviewing-stand at the opposite end. 
Such re-erections of early monuments in later times at other than their 
original positions was doubtless not unusual; but the case can rarely be 





1 Incorrectly recorded as 12 in the original. 2 Incorrectly recorded as 13 in the original. 
3 The exact provenance of Altar W, shown in plate 6 as having been found in the Western Court, is unknown. 


(See pp. 364, 365.) 


330 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


proved as clearly as here, where one of the monuments in question, Stela 
P, actually bears a date 150 years earlier than the earliest dated construction 
or temple in the immediate vicinity. 

After 9.17.5.0.0 the scene of principal sculptural activity shifted away 
from the Eastern and Western Courts of the Acropolis back to the Great 
Plaza of the Main Structure and also to Old Copan (Group g), both of which 
next became the two chief centers for sculptural embellishment in the valley. 


ALTAR W’. 
Provenance: At Group 6, 1 kilometer east of the Main Structure on 
; the west bank of the Copan River. 
Date: g.17.5.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Kayab.} 
Text, drawing: figure 46. 
Reference: Morley, 1917c, pp. 286, 287. 


Altar W’ lies in a small court surrounded by the remains of stone build- 
ings, 1 kilometer east of the Main Structure, on the west bank of the river. 
It is 94 cm. long, 44 cm. wide, and 37 cm. high. The front, back, and sides 
are sculptured, the top and bottom being plain. The surrounding buildings 
were built of squared dressed blocks, and there are a number of sculptured 
fragments lying on the slopes of the substructures. It is evident from the 
latter that this group was of no small importance, and that it was hand- 
somely embellished with sculptural mosaics, particularly the temple on the 
south side. ‘The floor of the court has been silted in to the depth of a third 
of a meter since the city was abandoned by some former overflow of the 
river nearby, and it was in this alluvial deposit that Altar W’ was found 
by the First Peabody Museum Expedition in 1891-92, buried in such a way 
that only its front surface was exposed. This was photographed,’ but no 
record of its provenance seems to have been kept or any mention made of its 
discovery, nor of the fact that its back and sides were inscribed with glyphs. 
Indeed, judging from the undisturbed appearance of the altar when first 
seen by the writer in May 1917, it seems highly probable that the latter 
fact had been entirely overlooked when the front was photographed in 1892. 

The altar, as found in 1917, lay front up, embedded in the earth to 
within a centimeter of the top of the block. ‘The exposed surface was 
sculptured with a representation of the two-headed dragon, the uinal head 
being at the left and the head of the Long Nose God, God B of the Schell- 
has classification at the right. (See figure 46, a.) This face, as already 
noted, was not the original top of the monument, but its front. Digging 
along the sides to free it from the earth in which it lay buried, it was found 
that the two ends were inscribed with glyphs, and when the whole monument 
was excavated it was found that the back also had been similarly treated. 

Facing the altar, the inscription begins on the right end, passes thence 
across the back, and finishes on the left end, figure 46, b, d, andc, respectively. 


1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 
2 See photograph No. 107, in the Peabody Museum files. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 331 


There are 4 glyph-blocks on each end and 10 on the back, making 4+4-++10= 
18 for the entire inscription. 

The text opens (see figure 46, b) with the Secondary Series number 9.4 
in Al, followed by a glyph frequently seen in Secondary Series at Bia, and 
by a Calendar Round date 6 Ahau 13 Kayab at Bib, a2. The next glyph, 
B2a, is of unknown meaning, but the last glyph on this side, B2b, is the day 


aA 


ai 
GoNee 








d 


Fic. 46.— Design and inscription on Altar W’: a, front, b, c, sides, d, back. 


8 Kan. Counting forward 9.4 from 6 Ahau 13 Kayab, the first date in the 
text, the terminal date reached will be found to be 8 Kan 12 Mol, the 8 Kan 
of which, we have just seen, was recorded at B2b. Passing around to the back 
of the altar, we should expect to find 12 Mol in the first glyph on the back, 
ci, but such is not the case. Although the coefficient there recorded is 12, 
the month-sign is not Mol, but either Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh, with the best 
reading at Zac, which is 3 uinals later than Mol. 


332 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


There are no other calendric glyphs on the back and remaining side, 
although three glyph-blocks, p2, £2, and F2, have been destroyed, and the 
case presented by ci would therefore appear to be irregular. 

Three explanations suggest themselves in this contingency: (1) either 
the missing month-sign was recorded in one of the three effaced glyph- 
blocks, p2, £2, and F2, or (2) it was omitted altogether, as was sometimes the 
case, or (3) it was incorrectly recorded as 12 Zac instead of 12 Mol. ‘The 
last has most in its favor, and is, the writer believes, the correct explanation 
of the matter. In the first place, ci is the proper place where the month 
of this date should be recorded, namely, following the day in B2b. In the 
second place, the correct coefficient 12 is actually recorded here, as well as 
a month-sign, which is one of the four months immediately following the 
one required by the accompanying calculations. In the face of these con- 
ditions it seems unnecessary to assume that either of the other two explana- 
tions suggested apply, and this irregularity may therefore be explained as an 
error in the original. Errors in month-signs are extremely unusual, but not 
altogether unknown. There is a case of this kind on the tablet in the 
Temple of the Cross at Palenque, where the month Mol is incorrectly re- 
corded for Chen. (See figure 16, D9.) 

Attention should also be called to the close similarity between the month- 
sign in cl and the month-sign at p on Altar D’. (Compare figures 45 and 
46, d, where the superfixes are very nearly identical). This superfix looks 
very much more like that of Zac than those of Chen, Yax, or Ceh, and in the 
case of Altar Db’, the month there recorded was deciphered as Zac, although 
doubtfully. (See pp. 294, 295.) Unfortunately, the calculations on Altar 
W’ indicate an error here, so that although the two month-signs are the same, 
neither has any corroboratory value for the other. Although neither of 
the dates on Altar W’ is accompanied by any glyphs which fix its position 
definitely in the Long Count, there is little doubt as to the proper position 
of either. By referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that 6 Ahau 
13 Kayab closed the first hotun after 9.17.0.0.0, namely, 9.17.5.0.0, and from 
this fixed point, the second date can be calculated as having been 9.17.5.9.4 
8 Kan12 Mol. The former date could not recur at the end of a hotun until 
after the lapse of more than 4,500 years either before or after 9.17.5.0.0, 
and since the style of this altar indicates that it dates from the height of the 
Great Period, it is obvious that the 6 Ahau 13 Kayab in B10, a2 could have 
been none other than the hotun-ending 9.17.5.0.0. These two dates on 
Altar W’ bring it into close chronological relation with Altar Q just described, 
the first being identical with the next to last date on Altar Q, and the second 
only 120 days (6.0) later than the last date on Altar Q, the last two both 
being days Kan. ‘The identity of the two hotun-endings recorded on these 
two monuments, as well as the close proximity of their final dates, can hardly 
be accidental, but, as pointed out above, probably reflects some intentional 
relationship between them. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 333 


We again face the same question as in the case of Altar Q, which is the 
contemporaneous date, the hotun-ending 6 Ahau 13 Kayab or the closing 
date, 8 Kan 12 Mol? Without, of course, being able to decide this question 
finally until all the glyphs in the text shall have been finally deciphered, it 
seems probable that, as in the case of Altar Q, the hotun-ending represents 
the contemporaneous date of this altar, and that its closing date was “ pro- 
phetic,”’ that is, in the sense that it was still in the future when the altar was 
dedicated. 

A number of such cases have already been described (pp. 227,228), but 
only those where the so-called “prophetic” dates were considerably in 
advance of the contemporaneous dates, 7. ¢., from 10 to 130 years. There 
are a number of cases, however, where these “prophetic” dates overlap 
the contemporaneous dates of their several monuments by less than a year. 
Four have already been described here at Copan: the latest dates on Stela 1; 
the reviewing-stand in the Western Court, and Altars Q and W’, and at least 
five others are known elsewhere: Stela 1 at Los Higos (see fig. 62 and pp. 
384-386); Stela 1 at Aguas Calientes; Stele 7 and 10 at Naranjo; and Stela 
C at Nakum. (See plate 1 for the location of these cities). The following 
summary of these texts shows how much each overlaps its current hotun- 
ending: 














Stela 1. SE ie: Altar Q. Altar W’ 
X10. 15,020 9.17.0.0.0 6.17, 5.0.0 9.17.5.0.0 
14.0 (280 days) 3.0 (60 days) 3.4 (64 days) 9.4 (184 days) 
g.11.15.14.0 9.17.0.3.0 Gr17 603.4 O17, 6.9.4 
Los Hicos. Acuas CALIENTES. Naranjo. Nakum. 
Stela 1. Stela 1. Stelz 7 and to. Stela C. 
9.17.10.0.0 9.18.0. 0. 0 9.19.0.0.0 9.19.10.0.0 
7.0 (140 days) 13.18 (278 days) 3.0 (60 days) 1.0 (20 days) 
0.17.10.7.0 9.18.0.13.18 92 19.,0.3..0 9. 19.10.10 








These overlapping periods are all 'ess than a year in length, varying 
from 20 to 280 days, and it seems reasonable to conclude therefrom that 
when such dates exceeded the current hotun-endings by such short periods 
as these, they in no way interfered with the primary function of such 
monuments as hotun-markers; rather these several final days were of such 
importance, and so near chronologically to the previous hotun-endings 
in each case, that they were included in the record of these previous hotuns 
rather than in that of their current hotuns. 

The style of Altar W’, as already noted, is of the best period. All the 
glyphs on the back are the very unusual full-figure variants, and in point of 
execution have but few peersinthecity. The relief is fairly high and rounded 


334 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


at the edges, the carving brilliant, and the figures admirably proportioned 
and arranged. ‘The composition of the individual glyph-blocks is always 
pleasing, and difficult elements are everywhere freely and easily handled. 
The effects obtained are extremely decorative. In short, this altar emanates 
from the best period of Maya art, which at Copan was that most golden 
of all the katuns, the eighteenth, 7. ¢., from 9.17.0.0.0 to 9.18.0.0.0. 

We come next to a group of three monuments—Altar T, Fragment EF’, 
and Stela 8—the first two being found at Old Copan (Group 9), and the 
last at Gioup 10. (See plate 3.) All three of them are contemporaneous 
and date from the tonalamatl between the erection of Stele C and H on the 
one hand and of Stele F and 4 on the other, the last two stele at Copan. 
This particular tonalamatl was exceedingly important, since within its span 
fell the first katun anniversary of the important date 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 
10 Mol. This significant occasion was commemorated by the dedication of 
these three monuments, one of which, Fragment E’, not only probably fixes 
the position of 6 Caban 10 Mol as 9.16.12.5.17 of the Long Count, but also 
presents the last Initial Series now known in the city. 

Leaving the Main Structure for the present, let us first examine these 
last few monuments at Old Copan. 


ALTAR TI. 


Provenance: Formerly with Altar U, just west of the large plain stela 
in front (1.¢., west) of the high mound at the south- 
eastern corner of Group 9. Removed in 1893 to 
the center of the village plaza. (See plate 3 and 
fig. 22, a and b.) 

Date: 9.17-12:5.17, 4; Gaban 0 Zips 

Text, (a) photograph: Mikiidler 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 118, 119. 

Ibid, vol. 1 of text, p. Io. 
(b) drawing: Ibid, plates 95, 96. 


figure 47. 
References: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 60-62, 69. 
Spinden, 1913, table 1. 


Altar T stands in the plaza of the modern village, just west of Altar U, 
having been removed thither in 1893 with Altar U from just west of the large 
plain stela in front of the high mound at the southeastern corner of Group 
g (see p. 300), in which position it is subject to the same undesirable 
attentions as this other monument. (See figure 22, a and b.) It is only 
approximately square, the shortest side being 1.27 meters in length and the 
longest side 1.90 meters in length. ‘The height varies from 61 to 76 cm. 

Across the top is sculptured a crocodile, the tail of which extends over 
the north side and the claws of the hind legs over the east and west sides. 
Running from the snout along the line of the back-bone to the extremity of 
the tail is asingle band of glyphs. With the exception of the three extending 
down on the north side, these are almost entirely effaced. Even the number 
is uncertain, though there appear to have been ten. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 335 


On the south side, which is the front, there are two vertical columns of 
4 glyph-blocks each, or 8 in all. Facing these are 4 human figures—z on 
each side of the glyph-panel—seated cross-legged on other glyphs, after the 
same fashion as those on Altars L and Q and the step in Temple 11. 

On the east side there are 4 other figures, also seated cross-legged, facing 
to the left, all grotesque animals except the last. The first may be the bat 
and the third the jaguar. On this side only the jaguar and the human figure 
are seated on glyphs. 

The west side is the counterpart of the east side. Here again there are 
4 figures seated cross-legged, but facing to the right instead of to the left. 
Again the first 3 are grotesque animals or birds, and the last again an anthro- 
pomorphic figure. The first is a parrot. -On this side only the human 
figure is seated on a glyph. 

On the back or north side are two animal figures, each seated on a 
glyph and each holding a glyph in its hand. If the design on the four sides 
of Altar T were presented as a single band with the panel of 8 glyph-blocks 
on the south side at the middle, it would be seen that 6 figures face this 
panel on the left and 6 on the right, and at each end would be a single animal 
figure, with its back to the other 6. When these two ends are joined the 
last two figures face each other and form the southern side. (See fig. 47.) 
This is an advance in bilateral 
symmetry over the arrange- 
ment of the 16 figures on Altar 
Q, 10 of which face in one direc- 
tion and 6 in the other. 

There are 6 other figures, 
all human, distributed over the 
top of the altar, 3 on the left 
and 3 on the right of the croc- 
odile. Indeed, so far as the 
general scheme of the design 
is concerned, it is bilaterally 
symmetrical with reference to an axis drawn through the back-bone of the 
crocodile. Such an axis has ro figures on each side of it, or 20 for the 
entire altar, a very significant number to the ancient Maya, being no less 
than the unit of progression of their entire numerical system. ‘This is also 
the number of the similar figures on the step in Temple 11, and four more 
than the number on Altar Q. 

It is not the purpose of the writer to go into the possible symbolism of 
these 20 figures; it may be pointed out in passing, however, that the human 
figures—the first, second, and sixth on each side—are of much the same 
type as the ones on Stela B, Altars S, L, and Q, and the step in Temple 11. 
This type of seated human figure was a development of the Great Period at 
Copan, and was copied also at Quirigua, on Altars L, Q, and R. Altar T 





Fic. 47.—Design and inscription on back of Altar T. 


336 _.. THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


is the last monument on which it occurs, and, in the opinion of Spinden, was 
sculptured by the same hand as Altar Q and the step in Temple 11. In- 
cluding the glyphs on which the figures are seated, there are about 30 on the 
monument. | 

The panel of 8 glyphs on the front or north side has no calendric signs, 
so far as known. 3 is the sign for God C, and a4 the familiar Zotz head 
with the Ben-Ik superfix. The same applies to the few legible signs on the 
top, as well as those on the sides upon which the figures are seated. Indeed, 
the only calendric glyphs on Altar T, at least now recognizable as such, are 
two dates on the back or south side. It will be seen in figure 47 that each 
of the two seated figures holds a glyph in its extended hand, that held by 
the figure on the left being “10 Mol” and that by the figure on the right “to 
Zip.”’ In other words, we have here two month-signs with their correspond- 
ing coefficients, but at first sight no corresponding day-signs and coefficients 
appear. The question at once arises, where are the days corresponding 
to these month-signs? 

We know, to begin with, that they must be either Manik, Ik, Eb, or 
Caban, since both the month coefficients are 10. This question puzzled the 
writer for several years, in fact, until he discovered that the heads of the 
two figures holding the month-signs are themselves the missing day-signs, 
both being Caban. An examination of these two heads in figure 47 will 
show that they are in reality nothing more than the sign for Caban with 
its usual outline changed to form the profile of a grotesque head, the curl 
@ element being utilized for the eye, and the hook @ element for the ear. 
{~ With this point once established, it was natural to look for the missing 
day-sigp coefficients in the corresponding head-dress in each case. In the 
first, figuPesite -head-dress is partially effaced, but in the original the remains 
of: ax anid?abave it a central numerical dot with an ornamental crescent 
on its right AppRag,very clearly, and this coefficient therefore is 6 @Y¥223V@, 
which makes the first head record the date 6 Caban 10 Mol. The < 
coefficient in the head-dress of the second figure is surely 4, and thise 
date is therefore 4 Caban 10 Zip. But it has been suggested that the Initial 
Series corresponding to6 Caban 10 Mol was9.16.12.5.17. “The next step, there- 
fore, is to find out what was the nearest occurrence of 4 Caban Io Zip in the 
Long Count to this date. Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found 
that the nearest occurrence of 4 Caban Io Zip to 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 
Mol was in 9.17.12.5.17 4 Caban 10 Zip, exactly 1 katun later, that is, the 
second date was the first katun anniversary of the first. 








ROA 





9.16.12. 5.17. 6 Caban 10 Mol 
110.030 
9.17.12. 5.17. 4 Caban io Zip 


This coincidence is so striking that it may be regarded as validating 
both these readings. The head of the first figure, together with the glyph 
in its hand (and note in figure 47 that both are in the same horizontal line), 


~- 
w 
ee 
< 
ae | 
a 





PLATE 31 


a) 
# ae 


Fe pis 
” 


i aanole 





Temple 21a. Inscription on the step of the inner doorway, Drawn from the original. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. nee 


records the first date (9.16.12.5.17) 6 Caban 10 Mol and the head of the 
second figure with the glyph in its hand (also in the same line but reversed 
in order) records the second date (9.17.12.5.17) 4 Caban 10 Zip just 
1 katun later; in other words, the time separating the two figures is just 
I katun. It is significant, therefore, in view of this fact, that the second 
figure is seated on a glyph actually recording “the End of a katun.” (See 
fig. 47.) This, it is true, is not the end of a specific katun in the Long Count, 
but only the end of 7,200 days from some previous date, namely, the date 
expressed by the first figure. In view of this fact, may not the glyph on 
which the first figure is seated have some generalized meaning, 
such as “Here begins the count’? 

This closing date fell between the dates.of Stele C and H on 
the one hand, and Stele F and 4 on the cther, being 117 days after the former 
pair and 143 days before the latter. 





Stele Cand HH 9.17.12. 0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan 


Rime (117 days) 
Altar T e172 6.176 .a°Caban 10 Zip 


7-3 (143 days) 
pte beandi4 |) 9.17.12.13..0. 4 Ahau 13 Yax 
One of the dates reached by the calculations on the neighboring monu- 
ment, Altar U, we have already seen (page 301), is the previous katun anni- 
versary of 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol, namely, 9.15.12.5.17 8 Caban 10 Mac. 
In other words, on the two monuments there are three dates just 1 katun 
apart each, viz: 
pitart 6.75212, 5.17 8 Caban.10 Mac 
L, O. O..'O 
Mieot i 6.160.12.5,17 6 Caban ro Mol 


Eon. 6 
Pitan 1) @.6.17-12..5.17 4 Caban fo Zip 


Although both of the dates on Altar T are doubtless correctly deciphered 
as given, the question which of the two indicates the contemporaneous 
date of the monument yet remains unanswered. The writer believes the 
latter date was present time when this altar was dedicated, for the following 
reasons: 


1. It is the later date of the two, and therefore the more likely to have been 
the contemporaneous date, a priori. 

2. When Maudslay first photographed Altar T there was still standing under 
it a block of stone, Fragment E’, which clearly records part of an Initial Series 
reading 9 cycles, 17 katuns, 7, 12, or 17 tuns, the uinals and kins missing. ‘This 
is apparently the beginning of the Initial Series suggested above for this date. 
Even the most remote values of the tun coefficient possible here, 7 or 17, could 
only have been 5 years earlier or later than 9.17.12.5.17, the date suggested above 
for 4 Caban 10 Zip. 


This point, z. ¢., the date of Fragment E’, upon which rests the determin- 
ation of the exact position of 6 Caban 1o Mol in the Long Count, is so 
important that it will be taken up in full under the description of that 


338 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


monument immediately following, and tor the present we may accept the 
date of Altar T as 9.17.12.5.17 4 Caban Io Zip, the first katun anniversary 
of 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol. 


FRAGMENT E?’. 

Provenance: Original position unknown. In 1885 was underneath 
Altar T in front of the large plain stela just west of 
the high mound at the southeastern corner of Group 
9. Now in the cabildo. (See plate 3 and fig. 22, ¢.) 

Date: 7.12.5.17 aban IOcip wy: 

Text, (a) photograph: Maudelay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 119, a. 

(b) drawing: figure 48. 

Reference: Morley, 1917¢, p. 287. 

In Maudslay’s reproduction of the west side of Altar T (1889-1902, 
vol. 1, plate 119, a) there appears underneath this altar a block of stone, Frag- 
ment E’, carved with several glyphs. In the Maudslay plate this block is 
shown as upside down. 

The Peabody Museum photographs of Altar T, probably taken a 
decade later (Nos. 108 to 111), do not show this sculptured fragment; and 
indeed it is clear from them that Altar T itself had been shifted between the 
time Maudslay took his photographs (not later than 1885) and the time the 
Peabody Museum ones were taken, probably in 1894 or 1895. It has already 
been explained how Altar T was shifted from its original position in front of 
the plain stela at the southeastern corner of Group g in 1893, that is, after 
the Maudslay photograph was taken but before the Peabody Museum ones 
were taken. And since Fragment E’ appears in the former, but not in the 
latter, it probably disappeared when this shift was made, to be lost for 24 
years, built into the foundations of the house in the middle of the southern 
side of the village plaza. (See figure 22,H,eandf.) Thisis apparent not only 
from the disappearance of Fragment E’ during the decade between 1885 and 
1894-95, but also from the fact that Altar T itself is differently supported in 
the two sets of photographs. For example, in the Maudslay photographs the 
east side rests directly on the ground, the west or opposite side being sup- 
ported by a block of stone at each corner. In the Peabody Museum photo- 
graphs, on the other hand, all four corners of the altar are supported by 
blocks of stone, the monument standing clear of the ground. 

Finally, Maudslay describes the front of the altar as the north side in 
1885, and in the corresponding Peabody Museum photograph it is described 
as “the southwestern side.’’ It is evident, therefore, from the photographic 
record, even if we did not have the direct testimony of Maria Melendrez and 
Jacobo Madrid in support of the fact, that when Altar T was removed to 
the plaza in 1893, Fragment E’ disappeared. 

When the writer first visited Copan in 1910 this important fragment 
was still missing, and repeated searches in 1912, 1915, and 1916 failed to 
bring it to light. During his visit in 1917, however, it was found in the 
foundation of a house on the south side of the plaza, which was being torn 
down to make room for a new building. (See figure 22, H.) 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 339 


The history of this fragment indicates how much probably yet remains 
hidden in walls and foundations of the houses in the village, and offers 
hope of other similar finds from time to time. 

Fragment E’ is only a very small part of an inscription showing one 
complete glyph-block and parts of two adjacent ones. It is 61 cm. long and 
38 cm. wide. 

Most happily, the only complete glyph 
is the katun-sign and coefficient and is very 
clearly 17 katuns (see fig. 48). The glyph 
preceding it presents the right half of the 
cycle-sign. This sequence unmistakably 
indicates that we have here part of an Ini- 
tial Series,! and we are perfectly justified in 
supplying the missing cycle coefficient as 9. 
The tun coefficient is clearly either 7, 12, or 17, the right-hand edge of the 
block coming just after the two dots and part of one bar, the lower right- 
hand corner in particular showing a small part of the latter. (See fig. 48.) 

Careful measurements of the katun and cycle-signs and of the katun 
coefficient led the writer to believe that if the tun-sign was the same width 
as the cycle and katun-signs there would have been space for just two bars 
of the same size as those in the katun coefficient. If true, this would make 
the Initial Series read 9.17.12.?.?. But this block was found underneath 
Altar T, the best reading of the closing date of which is 9.17.12.5.17 4 Caban 
10 Zip, which exactly corresponds with the best reading of Fragment E’ so 
far as the latter goes. Therefore, since these two monuments were associ- 
ated with each other when found, and since the later date on Altar T is 
doubtless its contemporaneous date as well, the writer is strongly inclined 
to fill in the missing parts of the Initial Series of Fragment E’ as follows: 
9.17.12.(5.17 4 Caban 10 Zip). In other words, the Initial Series on Frag- 
ment E’ probably records the same date as the later of the two Calendar 
Round dates on Altar T (4 Caban to Zip) and fixes its position in the Long 
Count beyond all dispute, and in any case it could only record dates in the 
puLUNseperoreaand altel 0.17.12.5.17, 2. ¢., cither in 9.17.7.f.! Or 9.17.17.!.2 

The close association of these two monuments definitely establishes the 
fact that the important date 6 Caban 10 Mol recorded so many times at 
Copan was none other than 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol. In the first place, 
Altar T records two dates exactly 1 katun apart, the earlier being 6 Caban 
to Mol and the latter 4 Caban 10 Zip. It has been noted already that the 
only places during the Great Period where 6 Caban 10 Mol occurred were in 
9.16.12.5.17 and 9.19.5.0.17, and therefore the only places where 4 Caban 
10 Zip could have occurred are 9.17.12.5.17 and 10.0.5.0.17._ But Fragment 
E’, which was found under Altar T, has an Initial Series (9.17.7, 12 or 17.?.?) 





Fic. 48.—Inscription on Fragment FE’. 








1 The only other count possible here would have been a Secondary Series, and aside from the rarity of Second- 
ary Series involving cycles, this could not be one, because the periods descend from left to right, *e., cycles, katuns, 
etc., whereas in Secondary Series they ascend from left to right, 7. ¢., kins, uinals, tuns, katuns, and cycles. 


340 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN, 


which has the same cycle and katun coefficients as the first of these two pos- 
sible readings for the Initial Series of 4 Caban 10 Zip. And of the three pos- 
sible values for its tun coefficient as determined by inspection the second, 12, 
is the same as the tun coefficient in the first reading suggested for 4 Caban 
10 Zip. ‘Together, therefore, these two monuments give not only the Initial 
Series of 4 Caban to Zip, but also that of the much more important date 6 
Caban 10 Mol, 1 katun earlier, Fragment E’ contributing the cycle, katun, 
and tun coefficients—enough to check by—and Altar T the terminal date. 

Aside from this important contribution to the chronology of Copan, 
Fragment E’ has the added distinction of being the latest Initial Series yet 
found there. It would appear to have been part of a step, perhaps of some 
temple, or possibly even part of an altar. The two ends are smooth, 1. ¢., not 
fractured, and have been dressed for close fitting against other blocks, as 
indeed the exigencies of the text demand. The great importance of this 
fragment lies in the fact that it gives the position of the first katun anni- 
versary of the date 6 Caban 10 Mol in the Long Count, and therefore of 6 
Caban 10 Mol itself as well, a fact postulated by the preceding monuments 
of this group, but here made reasonably sure for the first time. Before pre- 
senting a summary of the inscriptions recording this date, however, one other 
monument yet remains to be described, namely, Stela 8. 


STELA 8. 


Provenance: Now destroyed. Originally stood in the village 
cemetery I kilometer southwest of the village plaza, 
at Group 10. (See plate 3.) 
Date: 9-17-12.6.2 90: lke: Zip. 
Text, (a) photograph: plate 32. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 109, a. 
(b) drawing: —_[bid., plate 109, a and b. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, p. 179. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 38. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. I of text, p. 67. 
Spinden, 1913, p. 160 and table 1. 


Stela 8 formerly lay in the village cemetery, about half a mile southwest 
of the village plaza. A few months prior to Spinden’s visit in 1912, however, 
it was broken up, together with Stela 9, to serve as the foundation of a wall 
then in course of construction around the cemetery. Serious as this loss is, 
it is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Peabody Museum secured 
excellent molds of both monuments some years prior to their destruction. 

Stela 8 was found by Owens in 1893 in the bush southwest of the village 
under circumstances of peculiar interest in view of its late date. Says 
Gordon in this connection: 

“It [Stela 8] seems to have stood upright supported on either side by two other 
stones of an equal size with it, but lying flat. One of these [Stela 9] had originally 


hieroglyphs on all four sides—two of these sides being well preserved, while the 
others are almost totally destroyed. ‘The same is true of [Stela] 8.’ 


1 Gordon, 1896, p. 38. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 341 


It should be noted in passing that Gordon is wrong in saying that 
Stela 8 was sculptured on all four sides. Maudslay distinctly states that it 
had inscriptions on two faces only;! and this was the writer’s conclusion 
when he examined the monument in 1910. The two broad faces were sculp- 
tured with glyphs and the narrow sides left plain, a reversion in arrangement 
to Class 2 of the Early Period. 

If Stela 8 was originally supported by Stela 9 and another plain slab 
(both visible in Maudslay’s photograph, zbid., 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 109, a), 
we have here another clear case of secondary usage. We have already seen 
that other monuments of the Early Period—Stela 24 and Altars J’, K’, X, Y, 
and A’, for example—were reused in the foundations of later monuments; 
and it is not at all surprising, therefore, to find the same condition obtaining 
here. Stela 9 is a very early monument (9.6.10.0.0), and, as we shall 
presently see, Stela 8 is very late. It is not at all unlikely, in view of the 
other cases cited, that at the time Stela 8 was erected, more than 200 years 
after Stela 9, the latter had outlived its usefulness and was ready for the 
scrap-heap, hence its reuse in the foundations of this later monument. 

Each side of Stela 8 presents a panel of glyphs surrounding a decorative 
element, a sort of twisted rope, frequently seen on the monuments as far 
back as the beginning of the Early Period at Copan, on the fronts of Altars 
L’ and M’, for example. There are 4 columns of glyph-blocks, the first 
and fourth columns containing 7 each, and the second and third 3 each, 
making a total of 20 glyph-blocks on each side, or of 40 for the entire inscrip- 
tion. The decorative elements above mentioned occupy the space of the 
lower 4 glyph-blocks of the second and third columns. 

The inscription begins’? with the important date 6 Caban 10 Mol at 
Al, B1. (See plate 32, a.) This is followed in p1, a2 by the date 9 Ik 15 Zip. 
Maudslay incorrectly gives the day-sign as Ahau (2bid., 1889-1902, vol. 1 
plate 109, b), but this is obviously an error, since the month coefficient is 
clearly 15. An examination of the original, moreover, showed that Ik is 
the day-sign actually recorded. 

The presence of the day 9 Ik at pi and its corresponding month 15 Zip 
at A2 establishes the order of reading here as A1,B1, C1,D1, A2,B2, C2,D2, etc., 
instead of A1,B1, A2,B2, A3,B3, etc. This extremely unusual sequence was 
first pointed out by Bowditch, who reached his conclusions, however, from 
the date on the other side.’ 

We have already seen that the position of 6 Caban 10 Mol in the Long 
Count is surely 9.16.12.5.17. It remains, however, to fix the date 9 Ik 15 
Zip in its corresponding position. Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will 
be found that 9 Ik 15 Zip occurred but once in the Great Period, as follows: 
g.17.12.6.2, which is just 1 katun and 5 kins later than the first date on this 





1 Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 67. 

2 Maudslay figures the other side first (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 109, a). The calculations, however, show that 
the text begins on this side, 

3 Bowditch, 1910, p. 179. 


342 THE INSCRIPTIONS UATY COPAN. 


monument, 1.2., 9.16.12.5.17. This close chronologic proximity to the date of 
Altar T strongly indicates that the later date is the contemporaneous date of 
Stela 8. At c3 is 2 katuns, which may indicate that there were only two whole 
katuns left before the last date on the other side, 7. ¢., Cycle Io. 

The inscription on the other side opens with the hotun-glyph in £1, 
followed by 3 katuns and an ending prefix in F1, followed by the date “7 
Ahau 18 Zip End of Cycle 10” in G1, 1, £2, the superfix of the month-sign in 
H1 being on the left of the main element. (See plate 32, b.) Bowditch 
falls into error here, misreading this date as 13 Ahau 18 ?, and on the strength 
of the 3 katuns in F1 and the End of Cycle 10 in £2 he restores the effaced 
month-sign as Cumhu. He thus interprets F1 as 3 katuns, which, if counted 
forward from the date 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu in G1,H1, will reach the End of 
Cycle ro in £2.2. The day coefficient in Gi, however, is unmistakably 7, and 
the month-sign in H1 could only have been Zip or Ceh, as its superfix is 
like that of these two months 457/79 only, the loop at the right showing 
clearly. But we have seen that Cycle 10 ended on the day 7 Ahau 18 Zip, 
and “‘the End of Cycle 10” is actually recorded at £2, just following this date. 
Therefore Gi, Hi, E2 records “7 Ahau 18 Zip, End of Cycle 10.” Moreover, 
this reading conforms with the general Maya practice of first recording a 
distance number (possibly 3 katuns here), then its terminal date (7 Ahau 18 
Zip here), and finally the period, if any, which this date ends (Cycle rohere). 

It is quite possible that the 3 katuns in Fi may have been counted 
from the date 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, because of the record of the 
hotun-sign in £1. This seems to be the best explanation of this glyph, but 
that Gi,Hi declared the date from which they were counted it is equally clear 
can not have been the case. 

The glyph following “End of Cycle 10” in £2 is a tun-sign made into a 
head; G2,H2 are effaced. ‘The destruction of the latter is particularly to be 
regretted, since it was the day corresponding with the month Ito Zip at £3. 
Although the loss of this glyph of course prevents certain identification, the 
writer wishes to suggest the reading 9.17.12.5.17 4 Caban to Zip for this 
fragmentary date in H2, £3, that is, a date just 5 days earlier than the con- 
temporaneous date of Stela 8 (recorded on the other side), and exactly 
1 katun later than 6 Caban 10 Mol, the starting-point of this monument; 
and finally a date which is actually recorded as the contemporaneous date of 
Altar T. If this is true, it shows a close connection between Stela 8 and 
Altar T, since both start with the date 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol; both 
have the date 9.17.12.5.17 4 Caban 1o Zip, the first katun anniversary of 
the starting date, and finally both close within 5 days of each other. The 
record of Cycle to here is doubtless purely “prophetic.” It was not 10.0.0.0.0 
7 Ahau 18 Zip when Stela 8 was erected, but occasion was taken to point 
out the fact that this important date was approaching, indeed was less than 
3 katuns distant, in which sense its record here is prophetic. 

1 The ending-sign in this glyph (ES) is the same late form as the corresponding element in the hotun- 


glyph on the west jamb in the north doorway of Temple 11. (See plate 29, d, G8.) 
2 See Bowditch, 1910, p. 179. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 343 


The remaining glyphs on this side, with the exception of £4 and £7, are 
effaced. That Stela 8 is very closely connected with the other six and 
possibly seven monuments, if we include Fragment E’, of this ‘““6 Caban 10 
Mol” group, seems probable from the fact that many of its non-calendric 
glyphs are also found on these other monuments; and that it is late is also 
proved by the character of the tun element in the katun-signs at c3 and Fi. 
These are both the late variant already noted as occurring on the west jamb 
of the south doorway of Temple 11. A summary of this inscription, which 
is the last one presenting the date 6 Caban 10 Mol, follows: | 

Front, A1,B1 9.16.12. 5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol 


(1. 0. o. 5)! not declared 
Front, D1,A2 9.17.12. 6. 2 9 Ik 15 Zip 


Front, ¢3 2.(0. 0. 0) number of whole katuns before Cycle 10 (?) 
Back, £1 End of a hotun. 
(9.17250:00.10 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu) not recorded 
Back, Fi 4. (02.0.' ©) 
Back, Gi,H1 10. 0. 0. 0. O 7 Ahau 18 Zip 
Back, E2 End of Cycle to. 


Back, H2?,E3 (9.17.12. 5.17) (4 Caban) to Zip 


If the effaced glyphs p2, £2, and F2 on Altar W’ (see fig. 46, d) declared 
the date 6 Caban 10 Mol, it would bring this monument also into very close 
relation with the others recording this date, and particularly with Altar Q, 
since it dates from the same hotun as Altar Q (9.17.5.0.0) and has an over- 
lapping Secondary Series of only 6 uinals more. 


We are now in a position to present a brief summary of the dates on the 
several monuments of this group.” The relationships between them appear 
clearly in the table on page 344, where the several dates are arranged 
chronologically, the occurrence of any given date on any given monument 
being noted under that monument. It will be seen from this table that 
three monuments and one temple, namely Altars, U, R, and V and Temple 
11, have 6 Caban 10 Mol as their closing date and are therefore to be regarded 
as having been dedicated or put into formal use on that date. Two, Altar T 
and Stela 8, begin with this important date, and one, Altar Q, commences 
earlier and finishes later, recording this date in passing. 

The earliest date in the entire group is the hotun-ending 9.14.15.0.0 
11 Ahau 18 Zac on the west jamb of the north doorway of Temple 11. The 
two next earliest dates (Altar U) are somewhat uncertain, but beginning 
with 9.15.6.16.17 on Altar Q, for the next 6 years scarcely a year went by 
without the record of at least one date, and sometimes two or even three, 
the last date of this cluster being 9.15.12.5.17, exactly 1 katun earlier than 
9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol. During the next katun only one date is 
recorded, the first on Altar V, 9.16.5.3.6, but in 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol 


1On page 303 a Secondary Series number of 1.0.0.10 is noted at 11, Altar U, which if counted forward from 
9.15.12.5.7 will give the important date 9.16.12.5.17. Here 1.0.0.5 (five days less) is to be counted forward from 
this latter date to reach the contemporaneous date of this altar. 

2(1) Altar V, (2) Altar R, (3) Altar U, (4) Temple 11 (twice), (5) Altar Q, (6) Altar T, (7) Stela 8, and (8) 
Fragment F’ 





344 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


seven of the eight monuments come together for the first and only time, four, 
as we have seen, ending and two beginning on this date, and one, Temple 11, 
even having this date recorded twice. 

Stela 8 and Altar Q have the current katun-ending 9.17.0.0.0, and Altar Q 
also has the next hotun-ending, 9.17.5.0.0, closing with a date 64 days later. 









































Altar U. Altar Q. Altar R. Altar V. | Temple 11.| Altar T. Stela 8. | Fragment E’. 
9-14.15.0. O 
9.14.19. 5. 0 
Gels. 10.6000 
O15. Olay 
omits, mys ©. 
QO. Usen7 eos 
9-15. 8.10.12 
Qulig.1O.gOste2 
O15. 9-10.17 
Oss Oul3 40 
| 9-15 5. 0 
9.15 a 7 
9.1 G17 
9.16) 5533-50 
9.16.12. 5.17 | 9.16.12. 5.17 |9.16.12. 5.17] 9.16.12.5.17|9.16.12. 5.17|9.16.12. 5.17 | 9-16.12.5.17 
6.177.079 (twice) 9.17. 0.0. 0 
9-17.25. OO 
9.17. 5. 3. 4 
0.17.12.) 8.17 | 9.17.12. 6.17) (On 7m aeene 
CQ.17- 120502 
10: 0: 0.¢.-¢ 
(prophetic) 























The three remaining monuments of the group, Altar T, Stela 8, and 
Fragment FE’, continue for a little more than 7 years to the date 9.17.12.5.17, 
the first katun anniversary of 9.16.12.5.17. Altar T, and probably Frag- 
ment E’ as well, end on this date, and Stela 8 closes only 5 days later, 
9.17.12.6.2, with which latter monument there comes to an end one of the 
most important group of dates in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum. 
Indeed, the only comparable series is that presented by the “12 Caban 5 
Kayab” group at the neighboring city of Quirigua. In the latter group the 
corresponding position of the Calendar Round date in the Long Count is fixed 
by two different Initial Series as having been 9.14.13.4.17; and, as the writer 
has suggested elsewhere,! the glyph which always follows this date in the 
Quirigua text may perhaps set forth the nature of the corresponding event. 

In figure 49 the eight occurrences of 6 Caban 10 Mol at Copan are shown. 
It is interesting to note in this connection that this date is only 17 uinals 
(340 days) earlier than the second katun anniversary of Quirigua’s most im- 
portant date, 7.¢., 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab: 


9.16.12. 5.17. 6 Caban 10 Mol 


17. 0 (340 days) 
9.16.13. 4.17. 8 Caban 5 Yaxkin 








1 Morley, 1915, pp. 221, 222. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 345 


We may never know the exact nature of the event which took place at 
Copan on 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol—whether it is historical or astro- 
nomical—but its paramount importance can not be doubted any the less on 
that account, since it was either the starting-point or terminal date of so 
many important monuments.! 


Altar R 


pee Sedtmenr sy 
es =--~ 


Altar U 





Stela 8 


Fic. 49.—Occurrences of the date 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol at Copan. 


Provenance: 
Date: 
Text, (a) photograph: 


(b) drawing: 


References: 





STELA’ GC: 


In the Great Plaza at the Main Structure just south of 
Stela D. (See plate 6.) 

9.17.12.0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan (?). 

Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 39, b, 40. 

Gordon, 1896, figure 8. 

Catherwood, 1844, plate 4. 

Gordon, 1896, figure 4. 

Gordon, 1902), figures 20 and 21. 

Maudslay, ibid, plate 41. 

Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, plates opposite p. 155. 

Bowditch, 1910, pp. 134, 195, 196. 

Goodman, 1897, p. 130. 

Gordon, 1896, pp. 35, 36, 39. 

Gordon, 1902, pp. 169, 171, 185. 

Gordon, 1902), pp. 250-252. 

Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 44, 45. 

Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 755, 756. 

Spinden, 1913, pp. 159, 165, and table 1. 

Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 155. 

Thomas, 1900, pp. 776, 777, 801. 





1Gordon (19024, p. 138) gives the Initial Series corresponding to 6 Caban 10 Mol as 9.3.8.12.17. While it 
is true that one of the occurrences of 6 Caban 10 Mol was in 9.3.8.12.17, the style of the monuments upon which 
this date appears is so obviously that of the Great Period that Gordon’s Initial Series for this date may be rejected 


outright as a stylistic impossibility. 


346 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Stela C stood in the center of the Great Plaza at the Main Structure; it is 
now fallen and broken into several large fragments.! The lower half is in 
situ; and the upper half, broken into two large pieces, now lies nearby. 
Human figures of heroic size are carved on the east and west faces of the stela, 
the north and south sides having a single panel of glyph-blocks, 15 on each 
side or 30 for the entire text. On the basis of this arrangement of the design, 
Stela C may be assigned to Class 6. The relief is very high, in some cases 
projecting as much as 8 cm. from the plane of the back of the glyph-panel. 
Traces of red and yellow paint still adhere to the surface of the stone in 
protected places. 

One of the Peabody Museum Expeditions excavated around the base 
of this monument and brought to light another cruciform chamber like 
those found beneath Stele 7,1, 1, and M. (See pp. 103-105, 161, 162, 177, 
178, 278). It contained only three pieces of rough unpainted pottery, how- 
ever; nothing as compared with the elaborate caches found in the chambers 
below Stele 1 and M,? and in front of Stela I. 

The inscription probably begins on the south side, although both glyph- 
panels start with Initial Series introducing glyphs. As will appear later, 
neither is followed by an Initial Series, nor indeed is one recorded upon this 
monument. 

The introducing glyph on the south side, a1, is regular, except for the 
comb-like lateral appendages, which are here replaced by a pair of fishes. 
- This variant has already been pointed out in connection with the Initial 
Series introducing glyph on Stela D (p. 232), where it was suggested the fish 
may have been the original life-form from which the comb-like lateral 
appendage was derived.* Following in a2a is a glyph composed of the 
head-variant for the cycle-sign, surmounted by a hand holding a small rod, 
and a tassel postfix. g@@The coefficient is either 11, 12, or 13. This glyph 
is extremely important, &S@ since it probably is the sign for the great- 
great-cycle, which, so far 243) as the writer knows, is found in only two other 
texts in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarun,,' 2.¢., the tablet from the Tem- 
ple of the Inscriptions at Palenque and Stela 1o at Tikal, figure 50,c and d 
respectively. In both these cases the glyph designating the time-period 
of the seventh order or great-great cycle is composed of the cycle-glyph 
with a hand superfix and tassel post-fix. (See figure 50,c and d). ‘The glyph 
here in question, A2a (figure 50, a) is made up of the same elements, and in- 
deed is identical with the great-great cycle glyph on the Tikal monument in 
figure 50,d.° Moreover, the coefficient of the great-great-cycle glyph on the 
Tikal stela is 11, and we have just seen that 11 is one of the only three read- 
ings possible here. A close examination of the original showed that all three 





1 This monument was broken before Stephens’s time, as Catherwood’s drawing and the accompanying descrip- 
tion by Stepheris clearly show. See Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 155. 2 Gordon, 1896, p, 36. 

3 See also Morley, 1915, pp. 28, 69. 4 For a third possible exception, see note 2, p. 281. 

6 Such close resemblance is striking in view of the great distance which separates Tikal and Copan, about 300 
kilometers, and the widely differing epochs from which these two monuments date. Stela 10 at Tikal is one of the 
oldest monuments known in the Maya area (9.3.11.2.0), and Stela C one of the latest at Copan., 9.17.12.0.0, the 
former being more than 250 years earlier than the latter. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 347 


dots of this coefficient are, and apparently always have been, plain, although 
the left-hand one is a trifle smaller than the other two. (See figure so, a.) 
Since 11 is required by the calculations here, the writer has little hesitation in 
accepting this value; possibly the two outside dots were originally painted a 
different color to differentiate them from the middle numerical dot.! 

The identity of the period glyph and coefficient in a2 with the great- 
great-cycle sign and coefficient on Stela 10 at Tikal seems to justify the 
interpretation suggested by the writer for this glyph namely, that the date 
following in a2b, a3a occurred in Great-great-cycle 11, which was the current 
great-great-cycle of Maya chronology. 





Fic. 50.—Occurrences of the great-great-cycle glyph: a, Copan, Stela C, south side; 6, Copan, Stela 
C, north side; c, Palenque, Temple of the Inscriptions; d, Tikal, Stela ro. 


The natural thing to expect after the great-great-cycle would be the 
record of the great-cycle, then the cycle, then the katun, etc., but instead of 
finding an Initial Series like the one on Stela 10 at Tikal, the next glyphs, 
A2b, a3a, unmistakably record the Calendar Round date 6 Ahau 18 Kayab. 
It is clear at the outset, therefore, that whatever this count may be, it is 
not an Initial Series; and we should note here that this is another example of 
the Initial Series introducing glyph not followed by a corresponding Initial 
Series.? Leaving the position of this 6 Ahau 18 Kayab in the Long Count 
indeterminate for the present, let us continue the examination of the text. 

A3b and a4 are unknown, but in as, A6 there follows a Secondary Series 
number® 11.14.5.11.0; Aza is unknown, and a7, Asa is the same Calendar 
Round date, 6 Ahau 18 Kayab, as recorded above in a2), a3a._ asd is also 
unknown, and then in ag there is the Calendar Round date 6, 7, or 8 Ahau 


1 Maudslay (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 41, glyph 1a) shows this coefficient as 13. 

2 The occurrence of Initial Series introducing glyphs without accompanying Initial Series is confined exclu- 
sively to Copan, so far as the writer is aware, and is found here only on very early or very late monuments. There 
is, moreover, an important difference even between these two groups. The early monuments presenting this 
feature (Stele 7, 21, 18, 16, 17, 15, 7, and P) have in every case more than one Initial Series introducing glyph, 
sometimes two, three, and even four. Invariably, however, only one is followed by an Initial Series number which 
thus belongs to the monument, and by extension to the other Initial Series intreducing glyphs on it as well. In the 
late monuments showing this feature (hieroglyphic step of Mound 2, Stela C and F), however, there are no Initial 
Series, even though in one case (Stela C) there are two Initial Series introducing glyphs on the monument. Here 
is an important difference indeed. All the early monuments having more than one Initial Series introducing 
glyph have at least one Initial Series number, but in the later group, whether there be one or two Initial Series 
introducing glyphs, there is no accompanying Initial Series number. ‘This strongly tends to prove that Initial 
Series dating had already begun to disappear before the close of the Great Period, a fact commented upon else- 
where (pp. 288, 351, 364, 388, 392, 393). 

3 This can be nothing but a Secondary Series number, since its several terms are arranged in ascending order 
from left to right and top to bottom on the monument. 

4 Seler falls into error here, reading the uinal coefficient 0 instead of 1. An examination of the original con- 
vinced the writer that this is not the case, and that the correct reading is that given above. (Seler, 1902-1908, 


vol. I, p. 812). 


348 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


13 Muan. The remaining glyphs on the south side are either effaced or 
undecipherable. The question at once arises, what is the relationship (if 
any) between these three dates, the two 6 Ahau 18 Kayabs in a2d, a3a and 
A7b, asa and 6, 7, or 8 Ahau 13 Muan in a9; and further, have these two dates, 
6 Ahau 18 Kayab, one and the same position in the Long Count? 

Fortunately the number recorded in As, a6 is very clearly 11.14.5.1.0, 
and since this is not an exact number of Calendar Rounds, it can not be 
the distance from an earlier 6 Ahau 18 Kayab to a later one, and we can 
therefore answer the latter question with a definite negative; and a2), a3a 
and a7b, asa therefore must refer to one and the same date in the Long Count. 

It remains, however, to establish the relationship between 6 Ahau 18 
Kayab and 6,7,or8 Ahau 13 Muan, and to account for the number 11.14.5.1.0. 

Bowditch was the first to point out that this number exactly connects 
the dates 6 Ahau 18 Kayab and 6 Ahau 13 Muan;! and it must be admitted 
that no other reading will develop any relationship whatsoever between this 
number and these dates. This coincidence is in itself so striking that the 
writer regards Bowditch’s explanation as correct. It should be noted, 
however, that a close study of the original shows the two outside dots of the 
day coefficient are, and apparently always have been, plain. The middle 
dot, though slightly eroded, looks just like the two outside ones, and indeed, 
were it not for the fact that the calculations so plainly indicate 6 instead of 8 
here, the latter would be the preferable reading. Perhaps the outside dots 
were painted a different color, as suggested for the coefficient of the great- 
great-cycle-glyph in a2a above. 

Although the number 11.14.5.1.0 doubtless connects these two dates, 
there is no indication in the passage as to the position of either in the Long 
Count, since the corresponding Initial Series or Period Ending (if either date 
closed an even period) is wanting. Indeed, only two facts may be gathered 
from the text in this connection: 


(1) 6 Ahau 18 Kayab is the starting-point and 6 Ahau 13 Muan the terminal 
date of the count; and 

(2) A very long period of time, over 4,600 years, separated these two dates 
from each other. 


We have already seen, however, that when two dates separated by a 
vast stretch of time are recorded on the same monument, the earlier date 
never indicates the present time of the monument and thus the terminal 
date is never extended far into the future, but that, on the contrary, the 
later date corresponds roughly with the time the monument was erected. 
If this is the case here, 6 Ahau 13 Muan would indicate approximately the 
present time of Stela C; and since the treatment of Stela C is manifestly 
very late, this 6 Ahau 13 Muan must be sought for some time during the 
Great Period. 





1 Bowditch, 1910, p. 134. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 349 


The date 6 Ahau 13 Muan occurred twice during the Great Period at 
9.16.12.13.0 and 9.19.5.8.0. The former is much more likely to have been 
the Initial Series corresponding to this date for three reasons: 


(1) It is only 143 days later than 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban to Mol. 
(2) The other possible reading 9.19.5.8.0 is too late to be historically probable. 
(3) It is exactly 1 katun earlier than the contemporaneous dates of Stela F 


and 4. 


The writer therefore regards 9.16.12.13.0 as the Initial Series correspond- 
ing to6 Ahau 13 Muaninag.! And if this is the Initial Series of the terminal 
date, the Initial Series of the starting-point can be shown by calculations to 
have been (1).11.(18).18.2.7.12.0, by supplying the coefficients of the cur- 
rent great-cycle (19), and the current great-great-great-cycle (1) as indicated 
by the Initial Series on Stela 10 at Tikal, the current great-great-cycle, 11, 
being actually recorded in za. 

Ag (1).11-(19). 9.16.12.13.0 6Ahau13 Muan 


As, A6 11.14. 5. 1.0 backward 
A2b, a3a_— (1).11.(18).18. 2. 7.12.0 6 Ahau 18 Kayab 


That is, 6 Ahau 18 Kayab was a date which occurred toward the end of 
the great-cycle (18) previous to the great-cycle of the historic period (19). 

The inscription on the north side begins with an Initial Series intro- 
ducing glyph, B1, of exactly the same character as that on the south side, 
except its variable central element, which is a grotesque head, whereas the 
corresponding element on the south side is a human head. 

The next glyph, B2a, is the head-variant of the cycle, surmounted 
by the same hand holding a rod, and the same tassel post- fix as the cor- 
responding glyph, A2a, on the other side. (See fig. 50, b.) & The coeffi- 
cient again is either I1, 12, or 13, as on the other side.? Since Aza on the 
south side probably records great-great-cycle 11, and since B2a is almost ex- 
actly like a2a, it too may be regarded as designating the same period. 
The writer’s drawing of this glyph, figure 50, b, shows the left dot has an orna- 
ment; his notes state that the two right-hand dots are too eroded to deter- 
mine whether they were similarly treated or not. 

The next glyph, B2b, is very clearly 5 Ahau. Maudslay incorrectly 
shows the coefficient as 15, an impossible value for any day-sign coefficient.’ 





1 Bowditch (1910, p. 195) suggests that 6 Ahau 13 Muan may be 9.14.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan. If this were 
true, 6 Ahau 18 Kayab can be shown by calculation to have been (1).11.(18).17.19.14.17.0, the coefficients in paren- 
thesis being supplied from those given on Stela 1o at Tikal for the great-great-great and great-cycle glyphs respec- 
tively: 

AQ (1).11.(19). 9.14. 0. 0.0 ©6 Ahau 13 Muan 
AS,A0 11.14. 5. 1.0 backward 
A2b,A3a_— (1). 11.(18).17.19.14.17.0 6 Ahau 18 Kayab 


Bowditch gives the cycle coefficient as 10 instead of 17, believing there were only 13 cycles in a great-cycle 
instead of 20. The writer has explained that this is probably not the case elsewhere (1915, pp. 107-127). 
9.14.0.0.0, however, is too early for this monument, and the writer regards the next occurrence of 6 Ahau 13 
Muan, 9.16.12.13.0, as the value originally intended here, although it must be admitted 9.14.0.0.0 is within the 
range of probability, since it ends a katun of the Long Count. 

2 Maudslay (1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 41, glyph 1a) gives this as 13. 

3 The day-sign coefficients ran only from 1 to 13 inclusive. 


350 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


His error seems to have arisen through mistaking one rather thick bar with 
interior decoration (== for three thin plain bars==. An examination 
of the original, however, established that the coefficient is clearly 5. 

The next glyph, B3a, is quite clearly 8 Cumhu, and B2d, B3a therefore 
record the Calendar Round date 5 Ahau 8 Cumhu.' Before attempting to 
fix the position of this date in the Long Count, let us examine the rest of the 
text. The next decipherable glyphs are B7a and B7b, which declare the 
Calendar Round date 4 Ahau, 3, 8, 13, or 18 Uo, the only uncertainty being 
in the month coefficient. Bowditch (1910, p. 196) suggests the coefficient 
may be 13, and Goodman (1897, p. 130) that it was 18. An examination of 
the original clearly established the presence of a fleshless lower jaw, thus 
reducing the possible readings to 13 and 18; #3 and since the head has a 
frontlet composed of but one element (the charac- eal teristic of the head for 8) 
this coefficient is in all probability 18. B7 would therefore seem to record 
the Calendar Round date 4 Ahau 18 Uo. Without attempting to fix this 
in the Long Count, let us examine the next date in our text, B11. 

This records the Calendar Round date 5 Ahau 3, 8, 13, or 18 Uo, again 
the only uncertainty being in the month coefficient. Goodman (1897, p. 
130) suggests it is 8. An examination of the original, however, clearly 
establishes the presence of a fleshless lower jaw, the two dots frequently 
seen in this element also appearing quite clearly here; and, since the 
upper part of the head has a frontlet composed of but one element, we are 
again justified in identifying this coefficient as 18. Indeed, the month 
coefficients in both of the last two dates described are practically identical. 
Bil therefore records the Calendar Round date 5 Ahau 18 Uo. 

Ssecond to last glyph is another Calendar Round date 4 Ahau 
The day coefficient is surely 4 and the day-sign, in all prob- 
ability, eo Ahau, although itis partially effaced. ‘The monthcoefficient 
is either 13 or 18, and the month-sign is effaced. The writer believes this 
last date is probably 4 Ahau 18 Muan, the same as the last date on Stela H. 

We have, then, on the north side, four Calendar Round dates, 5 Ahau 8 
Cumhu, 4 Ahau 18 Uo, 5 Ahau 18 Uo, and possibly 4 Ahau 18 Muan, but no 
record of the positions which they respectively occupied in the Long Count.? 
Since there is no long number present like 11.14.5.1.0 on the other side, it 
seems fairly safe to assume that these four dates occurred at or near the time 
the monument was erected, 7. ¢., during the latter part of the Great Period. 
~ Our first task, therefore, is to ascertain where they occurred during the 
Great Period, which will be found to have been as follows: 








9.17. 2. 0.0 5 Ahau 8 Cumhu 9.16.19. 2.0 5 Ahau 18 Uo 
9.19.14.13.0 5 Ahau 8 Cumhu 9.19.11.15.0 5 Ahau18 Uo 
9.17.11. 6.0. 4:Ahbaur8.Uo 9.17.12. 0.0 4 Ahau18 Muan 
10. 0. 4. 0.0 4 Ahau 18 Uo 10. 0. 4.13.0 4 Ahau18 Muan 


' Tn a letter to Bowditch (1910, p. 196) Maudslay suggests that B2d is probably 13 Ahau instead of 15 Ahau; 
having previously suggested the correct reading, 5 Ahau, in a letter to Goodman (Goodman, 1897, p. 130). 

> The statement of the current great-cycle as 11 in B2a does not help in any way, since all Maya dates occurred 
in this period. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 351 


The second reading in each pair is too late to be historically probable, and 
all of them may be omitted from consideration. ‘This leaves the first read- 
ing in each pair as probably the correct one. A summary of the entire 
inscription follows: 

South side, a2b, a3a and 


A7b, A8a (1)'.11.(18).18. 2. 7.12.0 6 Ahau 18 Kayab 

As, AG TELA LO 

Ag (1) .11.(19). 9.16.12.13.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan 
North side, Bir (1)..11-(19). 9.36.19. 2.00. 15 Ahaui18 Uo 

B2b, B3a (01.10) 40.17.-2-.0.00 085 nau 6 Cumhu 

B7 (1) .11.(19). 9.17.11. 5.0 4 Ahau 18 Uo 

Br4(?) (1) .11.(19). 9.17.12. 0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan 


Before attempting to decide which of these last five dates designated 
the time Stela C was erected, it is first necessary to present the other three 
monuments of this group (Stele H, F, and 4), all of which are closely related 
to Stela C in style, as well as chronological content. Moreover, the chrono- 
logical sequence of these four monuments can not be established until all 
have been described. It must be remembered in this connection that when 
they were erected Initial Series dating had already begun to disappear at 
Copan, and it was no longer felt necessary to record the contemporaneous 
dates of the monuments by their corresponding Initial Series or even period- 
endings. Indeed, only one of these four monuments, Stela 4, has an Initial 
Series at all, and even this does not indicate its contemporaneous date. 

It will be found as the discussion proceeds that Stele C, H, F, and 4 
treat of the tonalamatl or sacred year of 260 days and that none of them 
were hotun-markers like all the other stele at Copan.? This fact also may 
possibly be connected with the failure to use Initial Series in recording their 
contemporaneous dates. 

Finally, since the chronological data in each case are so incomplete, it 
becomes necessary to rely heavily upon the stylistic sequence of these monu- 
ments in order to determine their proper positions in the Long Count; and 
since this matter can better be presented as a whole, further discussion of the 
date of Stela C will be postponed until after the descriptions of Stele H, F, 
and 4. 


STELA H. 
Provenance: In the Great Plaza at the Main Structure just east of and 
facing Stela A. (See plate 6.) 
Date: g.17.12.0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan (?). 


Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 54, b, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, a. 
Spinden, 1913, plate 19, 4. 
Catherwood, 1844, plate I. 

(b) drawing: §Maudslay, ibid, plates 56, 59, 61. 

Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, two plates following p. 150. 

References: Galindo, 1834, Appendix XI, p. 598. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 35. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 50-52. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 157-159, 165, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, pp. 149, 150. 
Thomas, 1900, p. 778. 


1 The coefiicients of the great-great-great-cycle and the great-cycle glyphs suggested here are those found in 
connection with the corresponding periods on Stela 1o at Tikal. 

2 Stela 8 (pp. 340-343) and Stela 11 (pp. 369, 370) are the only exceptions known and it is even possible that 
the latter may not be an exception. 


352 THE INSCRIPTIONS APT :COPAN, 


Stela H stands in the Great Plaza at the Main Structure, a few meters 
east of and facing Stela A. Stephens gives it the letter S in his map.' It is 
3.66 meters high, 1 meter wide, and about the same in depth. ‘The front or 
west face is sculptured with the figure of a woman of heroic size in very high 
relief, which stands almost free of the body of the stela. The head-dress and 
feather drapery of the figure extend around on and completely fill the two 
sides. The back is occupied by a grotesque bird-figure at the top, a gro- 
tesque mask in the middle, and a panel of 8 glyph-blocks in two columns at 
the bottom, the whole being surrounded by a beautiful border of feather- 
work tassels hanging from rosettes. On the basis of this arrangement of the 
design, Stela H is to be referred to Class 6, the same as Stele D and M. 

Catherwood’s original drawing of this monument, considered by some 
to be the finest at Copan, is in the Peabody Museum of Harvard University. 
It.is sepia in tone and shows Stela H standing in the dense forest which still 
covered the valley when Stephens visited the site in 1839. 

Catherwood’s portrayal is accurate and conveys a forceful idea of the 
original. He has faithfully rendered the expression of serenity and dignity, 
so characteristic of the faces on the Copan stele, and his delineation of the 
details of the clothing shows painstaking care. Similarly his drawing of the 
back of Stela F, the original of which is also in the Peabody Museum, is so 
accurate that it is possible to decipher the date inscribed there from it. 

The inscription on Stela H is very short—only 8 glyph-blocks, not more 
than 16 glyphs—and only the first glyph-block (A1) presents calendrical matter. 
This records the Calendar Round date 4 Ahau 18 Muan. This date occurred 
but once in the Great Period and there at the end of an even tun, namely, 
9.17.12.0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan, which strongly suggests that this is the 
Initial Series intended to accompany it. 

This same Calendar Round date, however, occurs on another monu- 
ment here in the Great Plaza, namely, on Stela A at c2, although here its 
position is fixed by means of the corresponding Initial Series as 9.14.19.5.0 of 
the Long Count, just 1 Calendar Round previous to the position suggested 
above for Stela H. Since 4 Ahau 18 Muan is the only date on Stela H, it 
follows almost of necessity that it designated the time of erection of the 
monument; and furthermore, since the same date occurs on another monu- 
ment less than 20 meters off (Stela A), with the Initial Series 9.14.19.5.0, it 
would at first appear that this was also the Initial Series of the same Calendar 
Round date on Stela H. 

A careful consideration of the evidence, however, shows that this is 
probably not the case. In the first place, Stela H is far superior in style to 
Stela A. Indeed, such are the technical advances of the former over the 
latter that both could not have been carved at the same time. There are, 
moreover, at. least three other surely dated monuments here at Copan, 
Stele D, M, and N, all later hotun-markers than Stela A, which stand be- 
tween Stela A and Stela H in the stylistic sequence. On stylistic grounds, 


1 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, map facing p. 133, and pp. 149, 150. 


PLATE 32 


MORLEY 


atid 


A. 


# 


4 


»* 


a 


a ae 





Ree 





— 


al ie tit aa ee 


n 1912. 


, (a) Front, (b) Back. Destroyed 1 
Courtesy of the Peabody Museum. 


tela 8 


S 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 353 


therefore, it is impossible that Stela H could have been made at the same 
time as Stela A, namely, in 9.14.19.5.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan,! and if not in 
9.14.19.5.0, the only other date available would appear to be 9.17.12.0.0. 

The several points, chronologic as well as stylistic, which tend to estab- 
lish the date of Stela H as 9.17.12.0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan are summarized below: 


1. The date 4 Ahau 18 Muan occurred but once in the Great Period (to which 
Stela H undoubtedly belongs), namely, atiO.1'7-12.0.0. 

2. This latter position, moreover, is the only place in Cycle 9 at which 4 Ahau 
18 Muan stands at the end of an even tun. 

3. This latter position has a peculiar chronological propriety here, since it is 
the first Calendar Round anniversary of a date recorded on another monument in 
the Great Plaza, namely, 9.14.19.5.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan on Stela A. 

4. The absence of an Initial Series points to the fact that this stela is late, 
probably dating from the latter part of the Great Period. 

5. In the stylistic sequence of monuments at Copan, Stele B, D, M, and N 
stand between Stela A and Stela H, and since the date of Stela N (the latest of these 
four monuments) is 9.16.10.0.0, it is clear Stela H must be later still. But we have 
seen that the only other date possible for Stela H, besides 9.17.12.0.0, is 9.14.19.5.0, 
and since this monument must be placed later than 9.16.10.0.0 on stylistic grounds, 
the latter must be eliminated, and we are left with 9.17.12.0.0 as the only date 
available. 


All things considered, it may be accepted with considerable assurance 
that the date of Stela H is 9.17.12.0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan. 


STELA F, 
Provenance: In the Great Plaza at the Main Structure, just north of 
Altars G,, Ge, and G;._ (See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.17:12:13.0 4: Ahau 13)-Yax (2). 


Text, (a) ee iis Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 4, 6, 50, 51, 54, ). 
(b) drawing: | Catherwood, 1844, plate 3. 
Maudslay, ibid., plate 52, a. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, two plates after p. 152. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, p. 238 and table 29. 
Galindo, 1834, Appendix X1, p. 598. 
Goodman, 1897, p. 131. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 35. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 48. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 159, 165, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 152. 
Thomas, 1900, p. 778. 


Stela F stands in the Great Plaza at the Main Structure just north of 
Altars G,, G., and G3. Stephens calls it Statue Q.2. The front or west face is 
carved with a human figure of heroic size whose head-dress and feather-work 
drapery extend around and completely cover the adjacent sides, in which 
respect it resembles Stela H. Stela F is 3.66 meters high and 91 cm. wide. 

The inscription on the back is presented in a unique and beautiful 
manner. ‘Two ropes are entwined in such a way as to make five loops, in 
each one of which there are 4 glyph-blocks, or 20 for the entire text. Out- 


1 The contemporaneous date of Stela A is in reality a tonalamatl later, 1.¢., 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax. 
2 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, map facing p. 133, and p. 152. 


354 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


side these loops there is a profusion of feather-work, rosettes, and tassels 
Slike those on Stela H. This close similarity in treatment extending 
‘even to small decorative details would appear to indicate that Stela H 
land Stela F can not be far apart in point of time, and on the basis of the 
arrangement of its design Stela F may be referred to the same class as Stela H, 
namely, Class 6. 

The text opens with an Initial Series introducing glyph in a1, which is 
followed, not by the customary Initial Series, but by a Calendar Round 
date, 5 Ahau 3 Mac, in B1,a2. ‘The greater part of the month-sign is effaced, 
but the superfix (2) 0¢€ fortunately is preserved enough to show that 
this sign is Mac. ot (@ O Following this in B2 is the lahuntun-sign 
already noted in (hs SO several places,’ and in B3 “End of Katun 15.” 
The remainder of the text, so far as known, has no other calendric glyphs. 

_ The record of 5 Ahau 3 Mac in B1, a2, followed by a lahuntun-sign in 
B2, indicates that the position of this date here was at the end of some lahun- 
tun in the Long Count. Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found 
that the only place in Cycle 9 where 5 Ahau 3 Mac could have stood at the 
end of a lahuntun, or in fact for 19,000 years either before or after, is the 
lahuntun-ending 9.14.10.0.0 5 Ahau 3 Mac. This position, moreover, gives 
point to the record of “End of Katun 15” in B3, since Katun 15 was the next 
katun-ending after 9.14.10.0.0 1.¢., “5 Ahau 3 Mac End of a lahuntun 
a eaty End of Katun 15.” 

The real difficulty with this inscription, however, lies in reconciling 
either of these dates with the admittedly much later style of the monument; 
and it must be granted at the outset in this connection that on the basis of 
all the data previously utilized in this study, it is necessary to refer Stela F 
elther to 9.14.10.0.0 or 9.15.0.0.0. 

Spinden, on the other hand, has proved quite conclusively’ on stylistic 
grounds that Stela F comes after Stele A, B, D, M, and N, and that no 
matter what dates are recorded upon it, it was not made until some time 
after 9.16.10.0.0, the date of Stela N. The criteria of stylistic sequence 
proving this point are so clear and so apparently indisputable that accept- 
ance of his conclusions is well-nigh inevitable. Indeed, the presence of 
this clearly recorded but too early date, and the entire absence of any glyph, 
so far as known, which might indicate that the contemporaneous date of 
Stela F was later, constitute a serious challenge to the accuracy of the 
conclusions heretofore set forth in regard to the contemporaneous character 
of the Maya dates; and unless this apparent exception can be satisfactorily 
explained in some other way, these conclusions, as well as the heretofore 







‘Tt is interesting to note in this connection that Catherwood’s drawing of the east side of Stela F (Stephens, 
1841, vol. 1, second plate after p.152) shows this glyph (az) was destroyed when he and Stephens were there in 1839. 

® The occurrences of the lahuntun-sign here at Copan are as follows: Altar Q’, p. 61; Stela 15, p. 88; Stela P, 
p. 116; Stela 6, p. 183; Altar H’, p. 188; Stela J, pp. 195, 200; Hier. Stair., Mound 26, Date 21, p. 256; Altar R (?), 
p. 299; and Stela F above. Other doubtful occurrences are Stela A, p. 222, and Stela N, p. 280. For other occur- 
rences of this sign see Morley, 19178, plate 2. 

3 The letter from Spinden to the writer, on pages 358, 359, sets forth the stylistic criteria by means of which 
this conclusion has been reached. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 355 


satisfactory agreements between the stylistic and chronologic criteria, would 
appear to be in danger of breaking down. ‘ 

In every other monument previously examined, at least one date, when 
there are several, designates the time at which the monument was erected or 
dedicated; that is, one date is the contemporaneous date. But in Stele F 
and 4 this can not be the case. Although the dates recorded are associated 
with fixed positions in the Long Count, not one in either inscription can 
possibly indicate the time either monument was erected on stylistic grounds. 
The altars of Stele F and 4, moreover, are not inscribed with glyphs, and 
therefore could not have brought forward the final dates on either of their 
associated stele to later times. Indeed, the condition presented by these two 
stele is unique, so far as the writer is aware, and it would appear at first sight 
that none of their dates can indicate the times at which they were erected. 

The true explanation of this apparently irregular and highly unusual 
condition the writer believes is afforded by the inscription on Stela H. Here, 
as we have already seen, there is recorded a single Calendar Round date, 4 
Ahau 18 Muan, which is exactly the same as a date on Stela A nearby, whose 
position in the Long Count is known, 7. ¢., 9.14.19.5.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan. 
But instead of having this position in the Long Count, the style of Stela H 
is such as to indicate that it was much later, and since there is only one date 
present, 4 Ahau 18 Muan, it must have been at least one Calendar Round 
later, 1.¢., 9.17.12.0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan. 

Applying this same principle to Stela F, its contemporaneous date would 
appear to have been the first Calendar Round anniversary either of 9.14.10.- 
0.0 5 Ahau 3 Mac or of 9.15.0.0.0. 4 Ahau 13 Yax, namely, 9.17.2.13.0 
5 Ahau 3 Mac or g.17.12.13.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax respectively and presumably 
of the latter, since it is the later of the two. As will appear in the discus- 
sion of the stylistic criteria of these four stele, the later position for Stela 
F best agrees with its position in the stylistic sequence. If this is the true 
explanation, it is not unlikely that one of the glyphs following B3 declares 
that there is to be added to the last date recorded, 7. ¢., “End of Katun 15” 
in B3, one complete Calendar Round, to reach the contemporaneous date of 
the monument. Only in this way may we reconcile the chronology and art 


of Stela F. 


STELA 4. 
Provenance: In the Great Plaza at the Main Structure between 
Stele A and B. (See plate 6.) 
Date: Dal ical 5 ed na ee ak.) 


Text, (a) photograph: hahaa: 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 103, b and c. 
(b) drawing: | Catherwood, 1844, plate 2. 
Gordon, 1902b, figure 19. 
Maudslay, ibid, plate 104, a 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, cut on p. 157. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, pp. 135, 183. 
Gordon, 1896, p. 42. 
Gordon, 1902), p. 249. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 42, 66, 67. 
Spinden, 1913, pp. 159, 161, 162, 165, and table 1. 
Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 157. 


356 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Stela 4 is broken off just above the feet. The upper part in falling 
broke into two large fragments. The lower part of the stela is in situ, 
and underneath it Altar Y was found (pp. 66, 208, 209), and under Altar Y 
a crudely executed statue of a human figure, said by Spinden to be one of the 
two most archaic sculptures in stone yet found at Copan. (See figure 67, d, 
and pp. 421, 422.) This monument, the most beautiful of all the Copan stele, 
has been prostrate for at least 80 years, since Stephens, who calls it Statue M, 
describes it as fallen and lying on its back in his time.? 

Again, we have exactly the same arrangement of the single figure and 
the inscription as on Stele H and F. The front or east face is carved with 
a human figure of heroic size whose head-dress and feather drapery extend 
around and completely cover the two adjacent sides, and the back has a 
vertical panel of two columns of glyph-blocks, 10 in each, or 20 for the entire 
text. This panel is surrounded by a mass of feather pendants and rosettes, 
of exactly the same type as those on Stela M and very similar to those on 
Stele H and F, and, on the basis of this arrangement, it may be assigned to 
the same class as the last two stele, H and F, namely, Class 6. 

This inscription has one feature which is duplicated in only two other 
texts in the entire body of the Maya inscriptions, Altar I’, also here at Copan,? 
and Stela 10 at Tikal, namely, in having its Initial Series introducing glyph 
in a position other than that at the beginning. ‘The text begins with a head- 
variant glyph in ai, the second position, B1, being the Initial Series introduc- 
ing glyph above mentioned. ‘This condition, barring the two exceptions 
noted, is without parallel in the Maya writing. The Initial Series were 
originally so named because, when present, they were always found to stand 
at the beginning of an inscription, and at no other position. Indeed, the 
Initial Series introducing glyphs on the above.three monuments are the only 
known exceptions to this rule. This glyph on Stela 4, with the exception of 
its position, however, is perfectly regular, all the customary elements being 
present in well-known forms. 

The next glyph, A2a, records the cycles of an Initial Series, and the next, 
A2b, the katuns. ‘The cycle coefficient is destroyed, but we are doubtless 
justified in assuming it to have beeng. ‘The katun coefficient is very clearly 
8.2 The next glyph-block, B2, is entirely destroyed, and since the first half 
of the next block preserved, a3a, is 10 Ahau, the missing B2 must have 
recorded the tuns, uinals, and kins of this Initial Series. The next three 
glyph-blocks, B3—Bs, are destroyed, which is particularly unfortunate, as one 
of them must have recorded the month corresponding to “to Ahau”’ in a3a. 





1 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, p. 157. On the legend to his map facing p. 133, Stela 4, called Statue M, is in- 
correctly described as “erect.” He gives its true condition in the text, however, showing that it was fallen and 
shattered in his time. 

? As already explained, pp. 190, 192, the displacement of the Initial Series introducing glyph on Altar I’ was 
due to the desire to have it preceded by a Secondary Series which would connect its Initial Series with the Initial 
Series on the sister monument, Altar H’. No such an obvious explanation can be advanced to account for its dis- 
placement here, however. 

8 These two glyphs have disappeared since Maudslay’s photograph of Stela 4 was taken in 1895. His 
picture shows, however, that even then they were on a thin flake, partially cracked from the larger fragment 
on which they were inscribed. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 357 


The date recorded by this Initial Series was a day 10 Ahau, which 
occurred some time in Katun 8, and since this day occurred 27 times in 
Katun 8, we have 27 possible dates here. There is an assumption, however, 
that may be made, which will reduce this number of possible readings to 
two. It will be remembered that in the vast majority of cases where the 
kin coefficient is 0 (7. ¢., where the day-sign is Ahau, as here), the uinal 
coefficient is also o, that is, the ends of even tuns were usually recorded. 
Assuming this to have been the case here, we will find by referring to 
Goodman’s tables that there were only two tuns in Katun 8 which ended 
on a day 10 Ahau, namely, 9.8.2.0.0 ro Ahau 13 Mol and 9.8.15.0.0.0 10 
Ahau 8 Tzec. Therefore in all probability one of these two Initial Series 
was recorded in B1-a3a. 

But we have seen, further, that hotun-endings were recorded far more 
frequently than other tun-endings; therefore of these two tun-endings, 
9.8.15.0.0 on general principles would be the better value of the two. Let us 
assume for the moment that the Initial Series of this monument was in fact 
g.8.15.0.0. 10 Ahau 8 [zec, and proceed with the examination of the text, to 
see if any further light is forthcoming from the remaining glyphs. 

The next decipherable glyph is at a6, which records the Calendar Round 
date 11 Ahau 18 Zac, and following this in Aca is a well-known ending super- 
fix, and in a6b “End of a hotun.” Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will 
be found that the only hotun in Cycle 9 which ended on the date 11 Ahau 
18 Zac was 9.14.15.0.0, and we may therefore accept this as the Initial Series 
corresponding to this date. But this is exactly 6 katuns later than the best 
reading of the Initial Series of this stela, namely, 9.8.15.0.0 10 Ahau 8 Tzec. 
This relation can hardly have been accidental, but tends to indicate that 
this is the correct reading of the Initial Series. 

That 9.14.15.0.0 is the correct Initial Series for 11 Ahau 18 Zac is also 
proved by the four glyphs following Aéa, 7. ¢., a7-B7, which unmistakably 
record “4 Ahau 13 Yax End of Katun 15,” that is, the next hotun-ending 
after 9.14.15.0.0 in the Long Count, and a katun-ending as well. This is the 
last decipherable glyph on Stela 4, although the next to last glyph-block of 
the inscription, Blo records 13? and may have some significance, as will 
appear later. 

Stela 4 is the most advanced of all the Copan stele stylistically con- 
sidered, the last and most notable achievement of the Copan sculptors in 
portraying the human form. Its contemporaneous date, therefore, can not 
be 9.15.0.0.0, the last date recorded upon it, since there are at least three 
earlier monuments in the stylistic sequence (Stele D, M, and N), the con- 
temporaneous dates of which are surely later than 9.15.0.0.0. It is not 
unlikely, therefore, that the same condition obtains here as probably ob- 
tained on Stela F, the contemporaneous date of which we have seen was 
probably 1 Calendar Round later than the latest date actually recorded upon 


1 As a result of Spinden’s visit to Copan in 1914, he reached the conclusion that on stylistic grounds Stela 4 
is the latest stela there. (See p. 359.) 


358 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


that monument. If this is also true of Stela 4, its contemporaneous date 
was 9.17.12.13.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax, 7.¢., 1 Calendar Round later than 9.15.0.0.0 
4 Ahau 13 Yax. Moreover, if this is the case, the last glyph in the text has a 
peculiar significance otherwise wanting. 

The lower three-fourths of the last glyph on the bottom part of the 
monument is effaced; but the upper part is very clearly the coefficient 13. 
Now, the current tun in which 9.17.12.13.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax fell ended ona day 
13 Ahau and was also a Tun 13, viz, 9.17.13.0.0 13 Ahau 13 Muan.  Bi0d, 
therefore, may possibly indicate either of these facts.? 

Stela 4 can not possibly have been made as early as 9.15.0.0.0, and was 
certainly made after Stela H (9.17.12.0.0). The style and arrangement, 
however, are such as to strongly indicate that it was executed only shortly 
thereafter; and the date 9.17.12.13.0 seems to fit it in every way. 

_ With this monument the long series of stele at Copan comes to an end. 
But before proceeding to describe the few remaining monuments, all smaller 
and apparently less important, it is first necessary to discuss the contempo- 
raneous dates of Stele C, H, F, and 4 and their relative positions in the 
stylistic sequence, and finally to point out the chronological interrelation- 
ships between them. At the same time, the reasons for arranging them in 
the chronological order suggested will be made clear and the correctness of 
this sequence established. 

The pioneer work of Spinden on the stylistic sequence of the monuments 
at Copan and the established reliability of his stylistic criteria are sufficient 
reasons for quoting him im extenso on this point: 

“T do not believe there is the slightest doubt concerning the artistic order of 
Stela A, B, D, M, N, and H. Beyond this last one, however, we are somewhat 
at sea. The artists had then become so skillful that few actual improvements were 
open to them, and most of the changes result from vogue and increased individuality. 

“In writing my memoir, when it came to the actual presentation of evidence, 
I was careful not to force too far the distinctions which seemed to be best explained 
by improvements from year to year in the sculptor’s art. New fashions were intro- 
duced and developed; new opportunities were discovered and improved. There 
are indisputable developments along several lines, but when two or three monu- 
ments that naturally fall close together are concerned it is not always wise to 
attempt to place each in its proper relation to the others. In the case of the much 
mooted final group comprising Stela C, H, F, and 4, the evidences of sequence are 


not altogether lacking, although the differences in subject render it difficult to 
supply any simple test. 





1 Tt is equally true, of course, that the next tun after 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax also ended ona day 13 Ahau 
viz, 9.1§.1.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Yax, but in this latter case the next tun was a Tun 1, not a Tun 13. Moreover if 
g.15.0.0.0 were the date of this monument, it would have been contrary to Maya practice in such matters to carte 
the count forward from an even katun-ending in their chronological system, to a tun-ending. On the other hand 
if 9.17.12.13.0 were the date of Stela 4, there was a decided point in recording the current tun-ending, not oaly 
because it ended on a day 13 Ahau, but also because it was a Tun 13 itself. The ancient Maya undoubtedly 
attached some unusual importance to a Tun 13 from the very earliest times down almost to the close of the New 
Empire. For example, the following early Tuns 13 are recorded at Tikal, Uaxactun, and Palenque: 9.2.13.0.0 
(Stela 3, Tikal); 9.3.13.0.0 (Stela 3, Uaxactun), and 9.8.13.0.0 (Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque). The 
practice seems to have carried over unto Yucatan, where the writer has found examples of it at Chichen Itza 
11.7.13.0.0 (Temple of the Two Lintels); Holactun (Xcalumkin) 10.9.13.0.0 or 11.2.13.0.0 (Temple of the Incl 
Series); and Labna, 11.8.13.0.0 or 12.1.13.0.0 (?) (the Palace). (See plate 1.) 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 359 


“The placing of the feet I regard as a very important minor criterion. All 
stelz up to and including Stela A have the feet turned straight outward with the 
heels together. In Stela B there is a slight drawing back of the heels, which becomes 
still more marked in Stele D, M, and N. When we come to Stela H, the heels are 
drawn in about 13 cm. from the front of the sculptured block, and the undercutting 
at the back has progressed much further than in any previous example. As I 
remember the placing of the feet on Stela C, there is no improvement over Stela H, 
but the rich details of dress on this monument are carved in much lower and more 
natural relief. The carving of two figures on opposite sides of one block of stone 
may have decreased the amount of relief, especially as a strip had to be reserved 
on the sides for the hieroglyphs. However, when we come to Stelz F and 4, there 
is an undoubted advance in the placing of the feet which can readily be seen on 
cross-sections made at the level of the feet. On Stela 4 the heels are drawn in 29 
cm. at the front and the feet are approximately at an angle of 90°. In the carving 
of Stela F there are other decided improvements to be noted over C and H. The 
legs and thighs are more nearly freed from the stone, and many details of the head- 
dress are completely undercut. The general outlines of the original plinth are felt 
in most Copan stelz, in that face, torso, and feet project to the same vertical plane. 
In H there is a sloping-back of the head-dress, but the face projects as far as does the 
chest. Now in Stela F there is an attempt to get away from this limitation. The 
chest clearly projects beyond the head and the ornament in front of the girdle 
projects still farther. Of course, in the seated monuments that adorn the Hiero- 
glyphic Stairway, we have the feet placed in an entirely natural position and more- 
over there is the proper modeling of the torso. 

“The progressive development of feather drapery seen in Stele A, D, M, and N 
reaches its utmost exuberance in H and F. Perhaps if careful drawings of C, 4, 
and F were available for study other significant details would be apparent. To sum 
up: the placing of the feet seems to show that F and 4 are later than H and C, and 
it is my personal opinion that Stela 4 will prove to be the latest stela at the Main 
Structure of Copan.”! 


It is clear from the foregoing that on stylistic grounds: 


(1) Stela C, H, F, and 4 are later than Stele A, B, D, M, and N; and 
(2) Stelz F and 4 are later than C and H; and finally, 
(3) Stela 4 is later than Stela F. 


It may be stated at the outset, in reviewing the chronologic and stylistic 
evidence as to the age of these four monuments, that the writer’s own studies 
in this direction have led him to similar conclusions. Going back to the 
earlier part of the Great Period, it willbe remembered that Stela D (9.15.5.0.0) 
was the first stela at Copan which has no inscriptions on its sides (Class 6). 
This monument, as we have already seen, was unusual in another respect, 
namely, in having nothing but full-figure glyphs inscribed upon it. This 
latter peculiarity, indeed, may have given rise to the former. Full-figure 
glyphs are large and complicated, and required more space for their portrayal 
than was available on the rather narrow sides of this monument. At all 
events, Stela D is the first monument which does not have at least one 





1 This letter was written under date of November 29, 1917. 


360 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


column of glyphs and sometimes two on its narrow sides, unless of course the 
sides are left plain, as in the early stele of Classes 1 and 2. Instead, the 
sides are covered with the ramifications of the feather-work of the head-dress 
and clothing. 

The next stela, M (9.16.5.0.0), has this same peculiarity, although here 
the excuse of full-figure glyphs is lacking. It seems as though the fashion of 
extending the head-dress and clothing of the main figure around on the two 
adjacent sides in such a way as to completely cover them may have origin- 
ated with Stela D, because the full-figure glyphs of its inscription required 
more space than was available on the sides; and further, that once the 
fashion was introduced, it proved sufficiently popular to persist in the next 
monument (Stela M), even though the necessity for it (the use of full-figure 
glyphs) was wanting. 

In the decoration of Stela M there was also introduced another new 
feature, the feather tassels with rosette tops, which was destined to become 
the most popular decorative element (so far as stele are concerned) of the 
Great Period. ‘The glyph-panel on the back of this monument is bordered 
at the top and on the sides by a design of feather-work tassels of great beauty. 

Another factor, which doubtless contributed to crowding the inscrip- 
tion from the sides to the back, was the increasingly free treatment of the 
figure, which in Stela D for the first time stands out from, and free of, the 
plinth. This was not accomplished, however, without a corresponding loss 
of space on the sides, which eventually became too narrow for the necessary 
textual matter to be carved there. 

Stela N (9.16.10.0.0), the next stela in the chronologic and stylistic 
sequence, has two human figures, one on each of the broad faces; and since 
there was no other place to put the inscription except on the sides, it appears 
there. Even this is hardly an exception to the fashion introduced in Stela D 
and continued by Stela M, however, since the head-dress and clothing of the 
two figures of Stela N extend around on the narrow sides, leaving room for 
only a single column of glyph-blocks between them, and we may conclude 
that the presence of glyph-blocks on the sides of this stela was only due to 
the fact that there was no other place to put them, and indeed so great was 
the necessity for additional space for the inscription that a band of glyphs 
was carved in the stone paving around the bottom of the stela, the only case 
of its kind in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum. Feather-work tassels 
and rosettes again appear on Stela N, though more sparingly than on Stela M. 

Stela N seems to have served as the model for Stela C (9.17.12.0.0), 
probably the next monument in the stylistic sequence. Again there are 
two main figures, one on each of the broad faces; and again the freeing of the 
figure from the plinth has crowded the inscription into a single column of 
glyphs on the sides, which is bordered by a rope design. Feather-work 
tassels and rosettes are used in the decoration of the figures on Stela C some- 
what more freely than on Stela N. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 361 


Stela H (9.17.12.0.0) is like Stele D and M again, having but a single 
main figure. Here again, however, the feather-work of the head-dress and 
clothing of the single figure are so elaborate as to occupy all of the space on 
the adjacent sides, and have thus crowded the inscription onto the back. 
This shows that the reason Stele N and C had inscriptions on their narrow 
faces was because there was no other place to put them, and not through 
lack of desire to continue the fashion inaugurated with Stela D. The gro- 
tesque bird and head and the panel of glyphs on the back are again sur- 
rounded on three sides with feather-work tassels and rosettes. 

Stela F (9.17.12.13.0) follows Stele D, M, and H in arrangement, 
having a single main figure, the ramifications of whose head-dress and 
clothing extend around and completely occupy the adjacent sides, as in the 
case of D, M, and H. The glyph-blocks on the back are inclosed in the 
loops of a rope design, the rope being just like the one on Stela C. This is 
surrounded by feathers, and on the outside by the same feather-tassel and 
rosette border as on Stela M. 

Stela 4 (9.17.12.13.0), the last of the series, is just like Stele D, M, H, 
and F intype. ‘There is but one main figure, and here, as in the other cases, 
the ramifications of the head-dress and clothing extend around and com- 
pletely cover the adjacent sides. The panel of glyphs on the back is sur- 
rounded on three sides with feather-work tassels and rosettes, almost ex- 
actly like those on Stele M, H, and F. 

Throughout this series of monuments stylistic progress is consistent and 
sustained, reaching its finest expression in Stela 4. By 9.15.5.0.0 (Stela D) 
the treatment of the main figure had become so natural, 1.¢., stood so free 
from the plinth, that the sides had shrunk to almost nothing and there was 
no longer space enough on them to carve the inscription, which was con- 
sequently restricted to the back. ‘This fashion persisted to the end, more- 
over, as Stele N and C can not be regarded as exceptions, since each has two 
figures instead of one, and there was no other place to carve their inscriptions 
except on their sides. 

The writer believes it is sufficiently clear from what has been said that 
the stylistic criteria present justify the following sequence for the last four 
stele, C, H, F, and 4. Let us next examine the several dates inscribed 
upon them and see whether or not the chronological data present corro- 
borate this arrangement. 

Stela C, it will be remembered, has six dates, one in the remote past 
and five at or near the contemporaneous date of the monument. Stela H 
has but one date. Stela F has two actually recorded and one more, the 
contemporaneous date demanded by the stylistic criteria. Finally, Stela 4 
has three actually recorded and a fourth, the contemporaneous date de- 
manded by the stylistic criteria. Inthe table at the top of page 362, these 
dates have been arranged in their proper chronological sequence, the dates 
of each monument appearing in a separate column. 


362 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


STELA C. STELA H. STELA F. STELA 4. 
(1) ETAIS). 18. °2.97512.0 
g. 8.15. 0.0 
9.14.10. 0.0 
9.14.15. 0.0 
9.16-20..0.0 9.15.0. 0.0 
GaOnz,19.0 
9.16.19. 2.0 
Sel bry ese 
G.17.11: 5.0 
9.17.12. 0.0 9.17.12. 0.0 
9.17.12:13.0! Q.17.12.13:05 


Leaving aside the mythological date (1)11.(18).18.2.7.12.0, the earliest 
date in the historic period is the first on Stela 4, 9.8.15.0.0; next comes 
9.14.10.0.0 on Stela F, next 9.14.15.0.0 again on Stela 4, a hotun later than 
the preceding, and exactly 6 katuns later than the opening date on this 
monument. Finally, both Stele F and 4 come together on the next hotun- 
ending, 9.15.0.0.0, which appears as the last date in each. ‘These first five 
dates in the historic period are all recorded on one or the other of the two 
later monuments, and are the only hotun-endings in the entire group of 14 
dates. As we have already seen, the last date recorded on Stele F and 4 is 
the same, 9.15.0.0.0, although on stylistic grounds it is necessary to con- 
clude that Stela F was made first. If Stela F is earlier than Stela 4, then 
9.14.10.0.0 was the first of these hotuns to be recorded, being on Stela F, 
and following this the next katun-ending, 9.15.0.0.0. Stela 4 begins with 
a still earlier hotun-ending, 9.8.15.0.0, whose sixth katun anniversary, how- 
ever, 9.14.15.0.0 (also recorded), lies between the two hotuns on Stela F, and 
finally, the next hotun after 9.14.15.0.0, 1.¢., 9.15.0.0.0, is also recorded on 
Stela 4. This concludes the group of hotun-endings, which, it should be 
remembered, are on the two /ater monuments and not the two earlier ones 
of the group. 

Could the record of these two particular hotuns, 9.14.10.0.0 on Stela 
F and 9.14.15.0.0 on Stela 4, more than 60 years after either of them had 
been the current hotun-ending, be due to the desire on the part of the priests 
to fill an earlier gap in the sequence of the hotun endings? It will be re- 
membered that after 9.13.15.0.0 or 9.14.0.0.0 (the date of Stela 5) no monu- 
ments appear to have been erected until 20 years later, in 9.15.0.0.0 (Stele A 
and B), and that the hotuns 9.14.5.0.0, 9.14.10.0.0 and 9.14.15.0.0 apparently 
were allowed to pass without corresponding markers being erected. Pos- 
sibly the priests thought they could supply this deficiency more than 60 
years later (7.¢., in 9.17.12.0.0 and 9.17.12.13.0) by recording on stele then 
in course of being made, two of these three missing hotun-endings, a naive 
but apocryphal attempt to perfect their records, not without parallel in 
other places at other times. 

Next comes a series of five dates on the earliest monument of the group, 
Stela C, each one of which is important in one way or another. ‘The first, 


1 This date is not recorded, but is not only implied by the calculations, but also demanded by the stylistic 
criteria. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 363 


g.16.12.13.0, is very near the important date 9.16.12.5.17, being in fact only 
143 days later, and only 195 days earlier than the last date on the pedestal 
of Stela N. More important still, however, is the fact that it is just 1 katun 
earlier than the closing dates of Stele F and 4. The second, 9.16.19.2.0, 
seems to have no connection with the first, but it is just 4 tonalamatls 
earlier than the third. ‘The third, 9.17.2.0.0, has the relationship with the 
second just noted, but more important still, it is just a lahuntun or half 
katun earlier than the last date on this monument and the only date on 
Stela H. The fourth, 9.17.11.5.0, is exactly 1 tonalamatl earlier than the 
last date on this monument and the only date on Stela H. The next date, 
9.17.12.0.0, is not only the last date on Stela C and probably its contempo- 
raneous date as well, but also is the only date on Stela H. It is just exactly 
1 tonalamatl /ater than the preceding date on Stela C and 1 tonalamatl 
earlier than the closing dates of Stele F and 4. Since it is the only date of 
any kind on Stela H, it is necessary to conclude that it was the contemporane- 
ous date of the monument, but in addition to this, the writer believes, it 
also was the contemporaneous date of Stela C, being not only the latest in 
point of time on that monument, but also the last date in the inscription, 
1. €., at the bottom of the north side. 

There remain but two other dates to discuss, the closing dates of Stele 
F and 4. These are both the same, and, as already pointed out, they are 
just 1 katun later than the second date on Stela C. In addition to this, 
they are just 1 tonalamatl later than the contemporaneous date of Stela C 
and the only date on Stela H. 

From the foregoing it is apparent that when these two pairs of monu- 
ments are arranged according to their chronological sequence, C being 
earlier than H and F earlier than 4, they will be found to be in their proper 
stylistic sequence as well, and the chronological evidence therefore agrees with 
Spinden’s analysis of the stylistic criteria, 7.e., two pairs of similar monu- 
ments, and indicates the accuracy of the readings suggested, which are re- 
peated below: 


Stelz C and H, 9.17.12. 0.0 4 Ahau 18 Muan 
Stele F and 4, 9.17.12.13.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax 


It will be noted that all four of these stele were dedicated on a day 
4 Ahau, and since in not one of them does this day coincide with a hotun- 
ending, the question arises, why should this particular day have been thus 
specially favored. The only suggestion the writer has to offer in this con- 
nection is that 4 Ahau was the day upon which Maya chronology commenced, 
i. e., 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, and therefore it may have had an unusual ceremonial 
importance on that account. 

In the above positions, Stele C, H, F, and 4 are practically contempor- 
aneous with Stela 8, Altar T, and Fragment E’; indeed, these last three 
monuments appear to have been erected during the tonalamatl between 
Stele C and H on the one hand and F and 4 on the other, all seven having 


364 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


been dedicated in the tonalamatl which contained within its span, as already 
pointed out, the first katun anniversary of the important date 9.16.12.5.17 
6 Caban 10 Mol. 

After 9.17.0.0.0, as we have already seen, a number of important works 
at the Acropolis of the Main Structure were brought to a close, the Eastern 
and Western Courts, Temples 11 and 21a, and Altars G; and Z. This must 
have released a number of sculptors, who next turned to the making of 
Stele C, H, F, 4, and 8, Altar T, and Fragment E’. The close relationship 
existing between these seven monuments has already been pointed out, Stele 
C and H being 117 and 122 days earlier respectively than Altar T, Fragment 
E’, and Stela 8, and Stele F and 4 being 143 days and 138 days later re- 
spectively than Altar T, Fragment E’, and Stela 8. 

The prominence of the tonalamatl or sacred year is particularly notice- 
able in Stele C, H, F, and 4, and indeed in these monuments seems to have 
completely overshadowed the primary function of the stele, 7.e., as being 
hotun-markers. With the breakdown of Initial Series dating doubtless 
went other practices, among them that of erecting a monument at the end 
of every hotun to commemorate its passage. New ideas were coming into 
favor, and old methods were giving way, which is perhaps the best explana- 
tion for the omission of the current hotun-ending in the inscriptions of Stele 


COHAieanda: 


We come now to the last three monuments at Copan, the dates of which 
appear to be reasonably certain, Altars W, G2, and G;. Unfortunately 
these are recorded as Calendar Round dates, so there is some little uncer- 
tainty concerning them. Indeed, the most that can be claimed for the 
readings suggested is that they are probably correct. 


ALTAR W. 
Provenance: Unknown. Removed to the Peabody Museum in 1892. 
Probably found somewhere at the Main Structure. 
(See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.18.0.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Mac!(?). 


Text, (a) photograph: plate 24, c. 
(b) drawing: Gordon, 1902, figure 14. 

Altar W is now in the Peabody Museum (catalogue number C. 2439), 
whither it was brought by the First Expedition in 1892. Its provenance, 
other than as having been found somewhere at the Main Structure, is un- 
certain. The museum catalogue only describes it as having come from 
“Copan, Honduras,” and Gordon’s only reference to it, that in his mono- 
graph on the Hieroglyphic Stairway, states that it came “from Copan.’ 

1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


? See Gordon, 1902. Title to figure 14 on p. 172: “Fig. 14.—11 Ahau 18 Mac. Date on a small circular 
stone from Copan.” 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 365 


The writer has referred it to the Western Court in plate 6, although it may 
well have come from anywhere else at the Main Structure. This paucity 
of data concerning its provenance is unfortunate, since, insignificant as it is, 
it probably records one of the very latest dates at Copan. It is drum- 
shaped, being 36 cm. in diameter and 18 cm. high. There is a knotted band 
passing around the periphery and two glyphs on the top. (See plate 24, c.) 
Gordon reads these correctly as the Calendar Round date 11 Ahau 18 Mac. 
This is a very rare case indeed—the record of a date without any other glyph 
accompanying it—and suggests the interesting possibility that the Maya 
may never have recorded much else in their inscriptions besides their chro- 
nology and astronomy. 

By referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that 11 Ahau 18 Mac 
occurred only once in Cycle 9 as a tun-ending, in which place it was not only 
a hotun-ending, but a katun-ending as well, namely, 9.18.0.0.0 11 Ahau 18 
Mac, which therefore is probably the Initial Series value to be supplied here. 
It would seem as though Altar W were very insignificant indeed to have been 
the only monument erected at such a large city as Copan to mark a katun- 
ending, particularly one only 20 years later than Katun 17, which we have 
seen was so brilliantly commemorated, and it is possible, therefore, that 
other monuments dating from this period may yet be found. One such 
may be Fragment X’, now in the Museum of the Normal School at Teguci- 
galpa, which clearly records either Katun 18 or 18 katuns, 7. ¢., either being a 
fragment from an Initial Series or a Secondary Series. (See p. 368.) 


ALTAR Gy. 
Provenance: In the Great Plaza at the Main Structure, midway be- 
tween Stela F and Stela H. (See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.18.5.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Ceh! (?). 


Text, (a) photograph: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plates 53, a, 54, 116, 117. 
(b) drawing: Ibid, plates 52, c, 114. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, table 29. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 49, 69. 
Spinden, 1913, table 1. 

Stephens describes Altars G3, G,, and G; as ‘‘a mass of fallen sculpture 
with an altar,’ under the name R.’ 

Altar G, is the twin, so to speak, of Altar G; (pp. 325,326). It is about 
the same size, and presents exactly the same subject as G;, namely, a double- 
headed serpent whose arching body leaves a hollow place in the lower part 
of the altar which runs clear through from one side to the other. Maudslay 
suggests that braziers of copal® may have been placed in this hollow, so that 
the smoke of the incense in burning would rise over the body of the serpent.* 
Above the hollow, and in the bend of the serpent’s back on each side, there 
was formerly a panel of 4 glyph-blocks, or 8 in the entire text. Unfortu- 
IPE DES OOD, Sea pl a a ce 


1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


2 Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, map facing p. 133, and p. 152. 
3 Copal, the resinous gum of the Elaphrium gracile Engler, was the universal incense used throughout the 


Mayaarea. It burns with a rather heavy black smoke and a fragrant aromatic odor. 
4 Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 49. 


366 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


nately, as in the case of G3, which has an identical glyph-presentation, one 
whole side is almost entirely obliterated; the remaining side however, 1s 
clear. This opens with the date 4 Ahau 13 Ceh in a1, B1, followed by 1 Ahau 
in Aza. Referring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that this date 
occurred twice in the Great Period—at 9.15.12.5.0 and 9.18.5.0.0. Because 
the latter ends not only a tun of the Long Count, but also a hotun as well, 
it seems to be the better reading here. 

There is, however, one point which may tend to cast some doubt upon 
the accuracy of this reading and indicate the former. This date, 4 Ahau 13 
Ceh, occurs on another monument here at Copan, namely, Altar U, where it 
almost certainly has the earlier value 9.15.12.5.0. Neither reading develops 
any special connection with the day 1 Ahau in a2a, for which no explanation 
can be offered. 

It will appear in the discussion of G, following, that if this earlier read- 
ing is accepted for G., the earlier reading must also be accepted for G,, 
which will involve a serious break in the stylistic sequence of these three 
altars. Furthermore, if the later readings for Altars G, and G, are accepted, 
they will be found to have marked successive hotuns in the Long Count. 
For this latter reason more than any other the writer accepts 9.18.5.0.0 
4 Ahau 13 Ceh as the probable date of Altar G,, admitting at the same time, 
however, that the earlier reading, 9.15.12.5.0 4 Ahau 13 Ceh, is not a remote 
possibility. 

The four glyph-blocks on the other side are almost entirely effaced. 
The last two, cl, D1, are probably a Calendar Round date. If O@O 
so, the day coefficient could only have been 1, 2, or 3, and ee 
probably 1, since a day 1 Ahau is recorded on the other side lit 
at asa. The month coefficient is either 6, 7, or 8. No explanation of this 
date can be offered. 


ALTAR Gi. 
Provenance: In the Great Plaza at the Main Structure, midway be- 
tween Stela F and StelaH. (See plate 6.) 
Date: g.18.10.0.0 10 Ahau 8 Zac'(?). 


Text, (a) photograph: fads 1889-1902, vol. I, plates CoP Sal (Gall ee 
(b) drawing: Ibid., plates 52, b and 114. 
References: Bowditch, 1910, table 29. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 49, 69. 
Spinden, 1913, table 1. 


Altar G, is much larger than G; or G., and, moreover, shows a somewhat 
different treatment, more closely resembling that of Altar O. The general 
outline of Altars G, and O is saddle-shaped, that is, with a seat or depression 
on top instead of an arch or hollow below. The subject in each case is a 
double-headed serpent, the heads at the ends rearing themselves higher than 
the body in the middle, thus forming the saddle-shaped depression above 
noted. Altar O has no inscription, but in the center of each side of G, there 


1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 367 


is a panel of 10 glyph-blocks, or 20 for the entire text. On one side at c2 
there is a large inclusion of harder volcanic rock, but the loss of space which 
its presence here entails was compensated for by having 6 glyph-blocks 
instead of 5 in the last column, p. 

The text on Altar G, opens with the date 10 Ahau 8 Zac at a1, BI. Re- 
ferring to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that this date occurred in the 
Great Period at two places, 9.15.17.5.0 and 9.18.10.0.0. Because it ends 
not only a tun but also a hotun and lahuntun as well, the latter is probably 
the better reading of the two, although the other is entirely possible. 

This whole question of the dates on G;, G,, and G, is rather perplexing, 
and the points for and against the two sets of readings are presented below: 

Stylistically arranged, the sequence of these monuments is either G3, 
G,, and G, as followed here, or G2, G3, and Gi, that is G,, the largest and most 
elaborate, being the latest in both stylistic sequences. 

Chronologically considered, the sequence is either G:, G,, and G;, or 
G3, G., and G;. This much is practically certain, that the date of G; is 
g.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, since we can hardly refuse to recognize 7 Ahau 
18 Pop and 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu, the only 4 glyphs on Gs, as other than the 
two consecutive hotun-endings, 9.16.15.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Pop and 9.17.0.0.0 13 
Ahau 18 Cumhu respectively. 

It will be remembered that we had two sets of possibilities here, namely: 


g.16.15.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Pop, and 9.19. 7.13.0 7 Ahau 18 Pop and 
9.17. 0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu 9.19.12.13.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu 


But not only is the second in each case too late to be historically prob- 
able, but the first two end consecutive hotuns of the Long Count. These facts 
practically render certain the accuracy of the first set of readings for G3. 
Therefore, no matter what the dates of G, and G, may be, G; is 9.17.0.0.0 
13 Ahau 18 Cumhu. But we have just seen that on stylistic grounds G; 
could hardly have preceded G3. Not only is G, larger, but it is also more 
elaborate. Indeed, on stylistic grounds alone, it would seem that G, must be 
the latest of the three altars of this type, since it is the most highly developed. 
But the date of G3; is known to be 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu; therefore, 
since G, is almost certainly later, it can only have been 9.18.10.0.0 10 Ahau 
8 Zac; and if G, is 9.18.10.0.0 10 Ahau 8 Zac, there can be little doubt but 
that G, must be 9.18.5.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Ceh and not 9.15.12.5.0 4 Ahau 13 Ceh. 
Moreover, this is the only arrangement supported both by the chronological 
and stylistic evidence; for, based on the stylistic criteria, there were two 
possible sequences: G3, G,, and G,; or Gz, G3, and Gi, and of these only one, 
G;, G2, and G,, is common to both. 

While it is true that definite proof is wanting, the writer believes, in view 
of all the evidence, chronological as well as stylistic, that Altars W, G2, and 
G, record the hotun-endings 9.18.0.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Mac, 9.18.5.0.0 4 Ahau 
13 Ceh, and 9.18.10.0.0 10 Ahau 8 Zac, respectively, and that as such they 
are probably the latest monuments at Copan. 


368 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


FRAGMENT X’, 


Provenance: Original position unknown. Now in the Museum of the 
Normal School at Tegucigalpa, Honduras. 

Date: g.18.0.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Mac?(?). 

Text, drawing: figure SI, a. 


Fragment X’ is a small block of stone 28 cm. high and 20 cm. wide, now 
in the Museum of the Normal School at Tegucigalpa. Its provenance is 
unknown, except that it came from Copan. 

The single glyph-block preserved very 
clearly records “18 katuns”’ (see fig. 51, a). O 
Unfortunately nothing remains, either of the 
glyph preceding it or of that following it, so O 
that it is impossible to tell whether this frag- O 
ment was formerly part of an Initial Series 
-or a Secondary Series. If, for example, the 
next glyph to the right was formerly the uinal- oe 
sign and coefficient, then this fragment was chim Hawai * iti 
in all probability part of an Initial Series, 
possibly recording the same date as Altar W, 9.18.0.0.0 11 Ahau 18 Mac. 
On the other hand, if the next glyph to the right was the cycle-sign and 
coefficient, 7.e., an ascending series from left to right, then this fragment 
was part of a Secondary Series, and the corresponding date to which it 
reached may have been anything. The style of the tun element is late, and 
it is not improbable that the reading suggested may be correct. 

From its nature Fragment X’ would appear to have been part of some 
mosaic panel like those in the doorways of Temple 11, or possibly part of a 
hieroglyphic step. If the latter, it almost certainly may be assigned to the 
Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26, in which case it was not part of an 
Initial Series, but of a Secondary Series.? 

The average height of the steps in the Hieroglyphic Stairway is 30.5 cm. 
as compared with 28 cm. for Fragment X’, not a great difference. On the 
other hand, this fragment looks more like a piece of a mosaic panel than 
anything else, and it may possibly have come from some glyph-panel like 
those in the doorways of Temple 11, in which event the reading suggested 
would not be improbable. 





There remain a few monuments which, for one reason or another, can 
not be assigned to their exact positions in the Long Count, though all doubt- 
less date from the Great Period. These are: Temple 18, Stela 11, Altars 
F’, G’, N’, 0’, T’, and U’, Shrine:R’,°and HKragment’ 775 [iiree eee 
Altar O’, and Temple 18, are either in or near the Eastern Court of the 





1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 
2 This is so because the Hieroglyphic Stairway was dedicated in 9.16.5.0.0, or at least 35 years earlier than 
Katun 18, and a later Initial Series than the dedicatory date never appears. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 369 


Acropolis at the Main Structure. (See plate 6.) Three others, Altars F’, 
G’, and N’, are just outside the Main Structure, on the plain, to the south, 
southwest, and west respectively. (See plates 3 and 6.) Two, Altars T’ 
and U’, are either at Old Copan (U’, Group 9) or in the immediate vicinity 
(T’, Group 10). (See plate 3.) Shrine R’ is on the hillside south of the river 
and southeast of the Main Structure at Group 7 (see plate 3), and Frag- 
ment Z’ is from a temple at Group 4. (See plate 3.) Since the readings 
suggested are uncertain, they will be described in the order given above, com- 
mencing with the three in the Eastern Court. 


STELA 11. 


Provenance: In the passage leading south from the Eastern Court, 
between Temple 16 and Mound 17 at the Acropolis, 
Main Structure. (See plate 6.) 
Date: g.17.5.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Kayab (?).! 
Text, (a) photograph: Gordon, 1896, plate 8. 
(b) drawing: Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 112, a-e. 
References: Gordon, 1896, pp. 38, 39. 
Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 68. 
Spinden, 1913, table 1. 


Stela 11 is a small cylindrical column 1.08 meters high and varying from 
36 cm. to 39 cm. in diameter. It was found during the course of the excava- 
tions in the passage south of the Eastern Court by the First Peabody Museum 
Expedition in 1892. The front and sides are covered with the representation 
of a human figure elaborately clothed. The back is inscribed with two 
columns of glyph-blocks containing 7 each or 14 for the entire text, on the 
basis of which arrangement it may be assigned to Class 6. 

The first glyph, a1, is very clearly 6 or 7 Ahau, and the uncertainty in 
this text arises from the fact that the month corresponding to this day was 
not recorded. The next glyph, Bi, bears a superficial resemblance to Mol, 
but it is not that month, and indeed there are no other decipherable glyphs 
in the inscription. 

The dating of this monument is indeed a difficult task, since at best we 
have the record only of a specified day, which recurred at intervals of every 
260 days. Indeed, even to approximate its position in the Long Count it is 
necessary to rely upon the stylistic criteria. 

The style of Stela 11 is clearly late. This is specially true of the glyphs, 
which are greatly simplified and show a somewhat cursive tendency noted 
in the latest texts at Copan. Another indication of lateness is the Kos 
presence oftheglyphin a2. This sign only occurs in late texts. (See ae ZS | 
Altar Q, B2, and the Reviewing-stand in the Western Court, p10.) CY Ey 

The human figure also shows many late features, the free treatment of 
the face and head-dress, for example. The arrangement of the figure and 
glyph-panel on the block is equally significant. We have seen that the 






1 For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


Che THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


former extends around the block, leaving only the back available for the 
inscription. This is a late development, as already noted. It was intro- 
duced first on Stela D in 9.15.5.0.0, and became increasingly popular as the 
Great Period progressed. It was repeated on Stela M a katun later, but 
omitted on the next two monuments, N and C, and finally used in the last 
three stele in the Great Plaza, F,,H, and 4. Its occurrence on Stela 11) 
therefore, is in itself a strong indication of lateness. 
Finally, the provenance of the monument, 7.e., in the Eastern Court, 

a late construction, would tend to indicate that it dates from the latter part 
of the city’s occupation. In fact, all the lines of evidence available, the 
stylistic criteria as well as the provenance, indicate that Stela 11 is to be 
referred to the Great Period and probably to its latter part. Even this does 
not greatly aid us, however, in deciphering the exact date unless we postulate 
that this monument dates from a hotun-ending. If this were true, it can be 
found from Goodman’s tables that there were only three hotuns in the Great 
Period which ended on a day 6 or 7 Ahau, namely: 

9.16.15.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Pop 

9.17. 5.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Kayab 

Io. 0. 0.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Zip 

Of these the last is almost certainly too late for Copan, and of the remain- 

ing two, 9.17.5.0.0 would appear to be the better reading, since this same date 
is also recorded on Altar Q, which also has the same unusual glyph as a2 on 
Stela 11, and also because most of the dated monuments and temples in the 
Eastern and Western Courts may be referred to 9.17.0.0.0 or the following 
hotun. 


ALTaR O’, 
Provenance: Found in 1915 in the Eastern Court in front of the 
Jaguar Stairway at the Acropolis, Main Structure. 
(See plate 6.) 
Date: The Great Period. 


Text, (a) photograph: plate 9, f, g, h. 
(b) drawing: figure 52. 

Altar O’ was found by the writer in the Eastern Court at the Acropolis, 
Main Structure, in front of the Jaguar Stairway, in 1915. No previous 
reference to it appears to have been made, and its original provenance was 
doubtless nearby. It is now in the southwestern corner of the court, whither 
some one has since carried it. 

Altar O’ in its present condition is 66 cm. high, 16 cm. wide, and 27 cm. 
deep. The front and sides are sculptured with glyphs, the back being dressed 
smooth, but left plain. Parts are missing both from the top and bottom, 
indicated by the broken edges at bothends. Possibly the central or preserved 
part of this altar rested on a pedestal and was surmounted by some orna- 
ment. (See fig. 52.) 

There are 4 columns of 5 glyph-blocks each on the back and two 
columns of the same number of glyph-blocks on each of the sides, making a 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 371 


total of 20+10+10=40 glyph-blocks for the in- 
scription. Unfortunately, none of those preserved 
records a date, though a few signs are recognizable, 
as, for example, the top glyph in the last column 
on the back, which is 3 katuns. 

The style of the glyphs is late, though earlier 
than those on Stela 11. It may be that the non- 
calendric glyphs present contain data which will 
enable us to fix the position of this monument in 
the Long Count, but until these shall have been 
deciphered, exact dating is impossible, and nothing 
can be done further than to refer Altar O’ to the 
Great Period. 
























































Fic. 52.—Drawing of Altar O’ show- 
ing broken edges at top and bottom. 


TEMPLE 18. 
Provenance: At the southeastern corner of the Acropolis, Main Struc- 
ture, part having fallen into the river. (See plate 6.) 
Date: 9.16.14.16.0 6 Ahau 3 Cumhu (?), or 9.17. 5.0.0 6 Ahau 


13 Kayab (?). 
Text, photograph: plate 24, a. 
References: Gordon, 1896, p. 11. 


Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, p. 26. 


No details of this temple are given either by Gordon or Maudslay, and 
indeed it is so badly ruined there is little that can be said about it. The 
facade is entirely gone (see fig. 53), although parts of the front doorway 


ee; 
yy WY, Yj Yy 
ty Yyy 


ty 


Y 
4 Vii 
Ys LZ Uj Wd Z 





Fic. 53.—Plan of north (front) gallery of Temple 18. 


and the north and east galleries may still be traced. The western gallery is 
almost entirely destroyed, having fallen to the bottom of the substructure. 

Along the back wall of the front gallery at B, C, D, and E, figure 53, and 
at the ends of the adjoining walls of the east and west galleries, A and F, 
respectively, figure 53, are six large, handsomely sculptured glyphs, set out 
5 or 6 cm. from the planes of these walls. The first to the left at A, in the 
east gallery, is very clearly 6 Ahau, and adjoining it around the corner in 


372 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


the front or north gallery at B is 7?, the glyph to which the 7 is attached 
being a grotesque head, probably the same as that on Altars T’ and U’. 
(Compare plate 24, a, with figure 55.) It has a long, upturned nose, filed front 
tooth, and fleshless lower jaw. ‘The two first characteristics clearly recall 
God B, the ‘‘Long-nose”’ God, and it is not improbable that this deity may 
be represented here. The upper part of the head is the day-sign Imix. (See 
plate 24,a.) At C, figure 53, is the same glyph with the same coefficient, 
except that here this head is turned to the right, so that it would face the 
doorway. 

At E, at the opposite end of the back wall of the north gallery, there is 
this same head, but with a coefficient of 8, and just around the corner, in the 
western gallery at F, ? Ahau. In order to have a symmetrical presentation 
it is necessary to presuppose another head like B, C, and E at D, with a 
- coefficient of 8, viz: 


A 6 Ahau D8 God B(?) 
B  7GodB E 8 God B 
GC) 7.God 5 F  ? Ahau 


Two dates have been suggested for Temple 18, neither of which may be 
correct. The first, 9.16.14.16.0 6 Ahau 3 Cumhu, is the same as the best 
reading of the starting-point of the count on the step in Temple 21a, 100 
meters to the north on the opposite side of the same court (see plate 6), which 
itself is a very doubtful reading. The proximity of these two temples, 
coupled with the fact that both clearly record the same day, 6 Ahau, may 
indicate that these two dates are the same. 

Altar R was found just in front of this temple, and its contemporaneous 
date, as we have seen, is probably 9.16.12.5.17, less than 3 years earlier than 
the date suggested above for Temple 18. 

Another possibility is that this 6 Ahau may be 9.17.5.0.0 6 Ahau 13 
Kayab, and that Temple 18 dates from the same hotun as Altar Q in the 
Western Court and Stela 11, which was found nearby. ‘The inscription is so 
fragmentary that it is impossible to proceed farther with its decipherment, 
other than to affirm that it undoubtedly dates from the latter part of the 
Great Period. Originally the inscription would appear to have been more 
extensive, as a block was found in one of the galleries showing parts of several 
bar-and-dot coefficients. 


ALTAR F’, 
Provenance: Found in the débris on the southern side of Mound 32 
at the Main Structure. Nowatthe Peabody Museum. 
(See plate 6.) 
Date: g.17.4.1.11 2 Chuen 4 Pop (??). 


Text, (a) photograph: plate 24, e. 
(b) drawing: | Gordon, 1902, figure 26. 
Gordon, 19024, figures 9 and Io. 
References: Gordon, 1902, figured, but no reference in text. 
Gordon, 1902a, pp. 134-139. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 373 


Altar F’ is a small, oblong, block of stone 46 cm. high, 36 cm. wide, and 
33 cm. deep, now in the Peabody Museum (catalogue No. C.88). Gordon does 
not give its exact provenance, but in the museum catalogue it is stated to have 
been found in the débris on the southern side of Mound 32, just south of the 
Main Structure. (See plate 6.) Around three sides extend nine parallel 
bands, which occupy the entire height of the altar. Each one of these has a 
knot in the middle, making a vertical row of 9 knots on one side. The oppo- 
site and remaining side, probably the front of the altar, is inscribed with 
two columns of 4 glyph-blocks each, making a total of 8 for the inscription.' 

The text opens with a Secondary Series number in a1, composed of tuns, 
uinals, and kins, but most unfortunately this corner is broken off, and of these 
three coefficients, two are missing. (See plate 24, ¢.) The tun coefficient is 
gone, but judging from the space which it occupied it must have been high, 
probably above 10 but under 16. The uinal-sign, as usual in Secondary 
Series, has two coefficients. The one to the left is clearly 10, and the one 
above, though destroyed, would appear to have been above 5 but under 11. 
The first half of B1 is a glyph of unknown meaning frequently found with 
Secondary Series as here, and Bib is the Calendar Round date 2 Chuen 4 
Pop. Although the form for Chuen in Bid u. h. is somewhat irregular, 
this identification seems likely, since the only other day-signs possible with 
a month coefficient of 4, 7. ¢., Cimi, Cib, and Imix, are all very unlike the day- 
sign recorded. ‘There is some little doubt about the day coefficient also. 
Gordon in his drawing shows this clearly as 3, but in the original the upper 
element is entirely broken off. Rather than assume an asymmetrical pre- 
sentation here, 7. ¢., 3 dots above one ornamental element, an X, it is more 
likely that the effaced element at the top was another X like the one at the 
bottom; and that the resulting coefficient was 2 instead of 3. There is 
nothing in the original militating against the latter assumption, and the 
whole weight of Maya practice in recording bar-and-dot coefficients is 
against the former.” It seems probable, therefore, that the date recorded 
here is 2 Chuen 4 Pop, instead of 3 Chuen 4 Pop as read by Gordon. 

The next question to be settled is, what was the position of this date in 
the Long Count? In the first place, it is extremely probable that the Second- 
ary Series number in Al is to be counted either to or from this date, but 
which? One thing alone is clear in this connection: If 2 Chuen 4 Pop is the 
starting-point and the uinal coefficient is 10, there is no place in Cycle 9 
where the end of a tun can be reached, and furthermore, if 2 Chuen 4 Pop is 
the terminal date and the uinal coefficient is 10, there is no place in Cycle 9 
where the end of a tun can be the starting-point. This follows because at 
no place in Cycle 9 is 2 Chuen 4 Pop found with a uinal coefficient of 7 or to. 

Turning to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that this date occurred 


in Cycle g at the following places. 





1 Most of these glyph-blocks are quadruple, so that there are 27 glyphs in the text in all. 
2 The writer recalls no example of an asymmetrical disposition of the elements in a bar-and-dot numeral. 


374 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


7.13.11 2 Chuen 4 Pop 
0. S.ie, 2 Chuena hop 
3. 3.11 2 Chuen 4 Pop 
5.16.11 2 Chuen 4 Pop 
I1.18.11.11 2 Chuen 4 Pop 
14.11. 6.11 2 Chuen 4 Pop 
74 TT oe Chuen ar op 
.19.16.14.11 2 Chuen 4 Pop 


wWoowooowor~0 


The style of Altar F’ clearly places it in the Great Period, where this 
date could have occurred but twice. Of these two readings, 9.17.4.1.11 would 
seem to be the better, because 9.19.16.14.11 is too late to be historically 
probable, although nothing positive can be urged in favor of the former. 

Gordon, in a long discussion of this inscription,! reaches the conclusion 
that Altar F’ dates from 9.0.15.10.11 3 Chuen 4 Pop. This reading, however, 
is open to two vital objections: the day recorded is almost certainly 2 Chuen, 
not 3 Chuen, and the style of this altar is certainly late, and not early. He 
points out further that the 9 knotted hands may have some reference to the 
current cycle, 7.e., 9, which appears probable. 


ALTaR G’, 
Provenance: In the field south of the Main Structure. (See plate 3.) 
Date: 9.15.4.17.1 4 Imix 9 Mol (?). 


Text, (a) photograph: plate 24, d. 
(b) drawing: figure 54. 

Altar G’ lies in an open field, about half a kilometer south by southwest 
of the Main Structure. (See plate 3.) It is a small circular stone 46 cm. 
high, 71 cm. tn diameter at the top, and 63 cm. in diameter at the bottom. 
It rests on four, short, round, fluted legs and has a band of 8 glyph-blocks 
encircling it near the bottom. (See plate 24, d, and fig. 54.) 





Fic. 54.—Part of inscription on Altar G’, 


Fortunately the date, so far as it goes, is very clear. This is the Calendar 
Round date 4 Imix g Mol, there being a line in the bar of the month coeffi- 
cient. This date occurred but twice in the Great Period, as follows: 9.15.4.17.1 
4 Imix 9 Mol and 9.17.17.12.1 4 Imix 9 Mol. Of these the first seems to be 





1 Gordon, 19024, pp. 134-129. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 375 


the better reading, as it is only 19 days earlier than Stela D in the Great 
Plaza. It should be noted, however, that the second is almost equally if not 
quite as probable. 

The plain to the south and southwest of the Main Structure is filled 
with the remains of stone buildings. Near Altar G’ were found several large 
human and grotesque heads, apparently parts of some facade decoration. 
This altar was probably associated with one of the temples in its immediate 
vicinity, of which there must have been several. 


ALTAR N’. 


Provenance: Found in 1915, due west of Mound 7 at the Main 
Structure, and just outside the wall built by the 
Peabody Museum around the Main Structure. (See 


plate 6.) 
Date: The Great Period. 
Text, drawing: plate 26, h. 


Altar N’ was found in 1915, 61 meters due west of Mound 7 at the Main 
Structure and just outside of the wall built by the Peabody Museum. It 
was not far distant from Mound 49, with which it originally may have been 
correlated. It is a rectangular block of stone 46 cm. high and 37 cm. by 58 
cm. at the bottom, and 32 cm. by 29 cm. at the top. The base is 23 cm. high, 
then comes a ledge cut back 1.5 cm., and then the upper half, also 23 cm. 
high. (See plate 26, h.) This offset gives a solid appearance to the altar not 
achievable in a simple rectangular block, and considerably enhances its 
artistic effect. 

Only the upper half is sculptured. On the front (one of the longer sides) 
is a delicately executed human figure 19 cm. high and 13 cm. wide. The 
head is grotesque and bears some resemblance to the uinal head. The oppo- 
site side or back is plain, the surface being neatly dressed. 

On each of the two shorter sides is a panel of 2 glyph-blocks or 4 for the 
altar. Although all are fairly clear, none appear to record a date. The first 
glyph, ai, has an ending prefix with a bar-and-dot 9 above the main sign, 
which is effaced. Could this have been Cycle 9? (See plate 26,h.) A2 is the 
head of God C, identified by Schellhas as the North Star or possibly Ursa 
Major. The first glyph on the opposite side, B1, is the day-sign Ahau with 
the same ending-prefix as in Al, but without any coefficient. The last glyph, 
B2, is undecipherable. Eventually, if a1 and Bi can be deciphered, it may 
be possible to date this altar, but at present the record is so elliptical, par- 
ticularly B1,it is impossible to even hazard a guess as to where it belongs, 
except that from its style and execution it may be referred with certainty 
to the Great Period. 

ALTARS Le. 


Provenance: Found in 1916, 0.5 kilometer southwest of the village on 
the edge of a terrace above the flood-plain of the river 
(Group 10). (See plate 3.) 

Date: The Great Period. 

Text, drawing: figure 55. 


376 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Altar T’ was found by the writer in 1916 on the edge of the first terrace 
above the flood-plain of the river, 0.5 kilometer southwest of the village at 
Group 10. (See plate 3.) It is a small drum-shaped stone 30 cm. high and 
49 cm. in diameter. The periphery is completely covered with four glyphs, 
one in each quadrant, and all alike. Above the glyph-band is a narrow plain 
border; the top and bottom are also plain. The glyphs show abundant 
traces of red paint. The glyph thus repeated four times appears to be the 
same grotesque head as that in the north gallery of 
Temple 18, probably the head of God B. (Com- 
pare figure 55 with plate 24, a.) We note the 
same upturned nose, filed front teeth, ear orna- ©) 
ment, fleshless lower jaw, and Imix-sign at the top © 
of the head, the latter somewhat differently treated, 
however. The only differences in fact are that @ 
here the coefficient is 9, as compared with 7 and © 
8 in Temple 18, and here the head has a super- 
fix wanting in the heads in Temple 18. This "© 55—P%t of scription on 
superfix, the writer believes, is the same as the 
one in the great-cycle glyphs on Stela 10 at Tikal, Stela N here at Copan, 
and on the tablet from the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque. Else- 
where he has suggested that this superfix increases the cycle-sign in a ratio 
of 20, 1. €., 20 144,000 = 2,880,000,! and if this is true elsewhere, it should 
have the same value here; but the meaning or value of the main ele- 
ment here is unknown. ‘The coefficient 9 recalls the cycle coefficient of the 
historic period, and if we could identify this grotesque head as a katun-sign, 
this superfix of 20 would raise it to the value of a cycle, and the 9 would then 
indicate the current cycle of the historic period. We could then explain the 
whole glyph as a novel synonym for Cycle 9. Bowditch figures a number of 
head-variant katun-signs (1910, plate 12), all of which show the prominent 
beak-like nose and a few the filed upper front tooth. None, however, shows 
the fleshless lower jaw. 

It does not appear advisable to press this interpretation farther, although 
it is interesting to note that it gives a plausible explanation for the coefficient 9. 
The date is of course undeterminable, except that on stylistic grounds it may 
be referred to the Great Period. 





ALTAR U’. 


Provenance: Found in 1916, in the patio of the house at the south- 
eastern corner of the village plaza. (Group 9). 
(See plate 3 and figure 22, n.) 

Date: The Great Period. 


Altar U’ was found by the writer in 1916 in the patio of the house at the 
southeastern corner of the village plaza, in which position it is near the base 
of the pyramid on the summit of which Altar S was found and from the 


1 Morley, 1915, pp. 120, 121. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 377 


interior of which the fragment of Stela 21 was recovered. (See plate 3 and 
fig. 22,k,/, and n.) It is a small drum-shaped stone like Altar T’, 29 cm. 
high and 48 cm. in diameter. The top and bottom are plain, the periphery 
being inscribed with three glyphs. These are very badly weathered, but 
from what is left it is evident that each had a coefficient of 9, and that each 
was probably the same grotesque head as on Altar ‘TI’, whatever that may 
be. The similarity of these two altars in size, shape, and treatment is very 
close, and both doubtless may be referred to the Great Period. 


SHRINE R’, 


Provenance: On the hillside south of the Copan River, facing the Main 
Structure and slightly east of south from it. (Group 
7, see plate 3.) 

Date: The Great Period (1). 

Text, photograph: plate 28, d. 


Almost due south of the Main Structure, on the side of the hill which 
rises just beyond the river, there is an outcropping of the native rock in a 
ledge, perhaps 60 or 70 meters above the bed of the stream. Advantage has 
been taken of this stone in situ, to carve from it an elaborate shrine over- 
looking the valley, the central figure of which is a large and realistic toad. 
(See plate 28, d.) 

No previous reference to this shrine appears to have been made, and the 
writer only heard of it on his third visit to Copan in 1915. It can hardly 
have escaped the indefatigable labors of Gordon or Maudslay, however, 
although neither mentions it in his writings. From one end to the other it is 
6 meters long, and at the widest point about 3 meters wide. The height from 
the base of the altar at the front to the top of the last platform at the back 
is about I.5 meters. 

Facing the shrine, 7. ¢., with one’s back to the valley, there is an altar 
on the right, slightly in advance of the other parts. This is the shape of a 
truncated cone, being perfectly flat on top. It is 41 cm. high at the back, 
though somewhat higher in front, owing to the slope of the hillside, 2 meters 
in diameter at the base, and 91 cm. in diameter at the top. Its position with 
reference to the other figures, as well as its shape, probably indicates its use 
as an altar for burning incense at the shrine. It is asymmetrically placed 
with reference to the long axis of the shrine, being at one side. 

Just behind the altar is a large, rough rock only partially dressed. The 
back and right sides show plain dressed surfaces merging into the steps or 
seats carved out of the ledge to the right of the shrine. The front and left 
sides of this rock are rough. Opposed to this on the other side of the shrine 
at the front, and ina sense balancing it, there is another large unfinished rock. 
The center of the front is occupied by the large toad figured in plate 28, d, 
the most conspicuous feature of all. This is 1.07 meters long, 61 cm. high, 
and 61 cm. wide, and squats on a bench of dressed stone, lips parted, tongue 
protruding, eyes half closed, and throat enormously swollen. The ledge of 


378 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


rock from which it is carved comes up much higher against the left side of 
the toad (facing it) than the right, and here, on the sharply sloping front, a 
column of three glyph-blocks is sculptured. 

These are the only glyphs anywhere about the shrine, and it is indeed 
unfortunate, therefore, that all three should be effaced, since with the loss 
of the inscription in such an unusual monument as this approximate dating 
on stylistic grounds becomes impossible. It is even hazardous to assume 
this shrine dates from the Great Period at all, since, judging from the 
stylistic criteria present, it is well within range of the sculptors of the Middle 
Period. To the right of the toad and slightly in advance is a lower grotesque 
figure, and another of the same kind behind to the right and also lower. 
Next comes a pair of rough unsculptured blocks balancing each other; and 
finally, at the top of the last bench, the highest point of the shrine, and some 
20 meters behind, are several mounds. 

The toad is easily the central figure, and a not inappropriate name for 
this whole cluster of sculptured rocks is that suggested here, “the Shrine 
of the Toad.” Its function, except as an obvious place of sacrifice, as indi- 
cated by the altar in front, can only be conjectured. Possibly the toad 
may have had some connection with the idea of rain, and this shrine may have 
been the place where sacrifices to the rain deity were made. 

The treatment of the head of the toad, even to adventitious details, is 
just like that of the head-variant of the uinal-sign. (Note the three dots in 
the ear in plate 28, d, and compare with the uinal-signs in plate 26, d, p, and 
plate 27, Eb.) Can this possibly indicate that this shrine was consecrated 
to the deity presiding over the uinal, namely, a toad-like god? Making due 
allowance for Maya psychological processes, the latter would appear to be the 
most attractive hypothesis now available. 

Here as the uinals waxed and waned the ancient Maya priests may have 
made the sacrifices appropriate to each of their 20-day periods; at least from 
its unique character and prominent position we can not doubt but that the 
Shrine of the Toad played a not unimportant part in the religious life of the 
ancient city. 


FRAGMENT Z’. 


Provenance: At Group 4, 2.5 kilometers up the valley from the 
Main Structure. (See plate 3.) 

Date: The Great Period. 

Text, drawing: figure 51, bD. 


Fragment Z’ is a small piece of a glyph mosaic 32 cm. high and 17 cm. 
wide from the principal temple at Group 4, 2.5 kilometers up the valley, 
northeast of the Main Structure. (See plate 3.) 

The first bench of hills above the valley floor at this point has been 
leveled off and a number of stone stiuctures built facing the valley. Judg- 
ing from the number of sculptured fragments lying around the principal 
mound, it formerly must have been an important temple. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 379 


Fragment Z’ would appear to have been part of a hieroglyphic cornice, 
or at least part of a horizontal architectural member. (Note the plain bands 
both above and below.) Part of one glyph only appears, which looks some- 
thing like the head of God C. Excavation here would doubtless bring to 
light the remaining fragments of this text, which, however, may be assigned 
to the Great Period on the basis of the stylistic criteria. 

This bench of hills on the north side of the valley, from the Quebrada 
Seca, Group 4, westward to Group 9, a distance 4.5 kilometers, has been 
artificially leveled off from end to end and covered with stone buildings. 
Practically no excavations have been made along this bench, and it offers 
one of the most promising parts of the city for future investigation, 
especially Groups 4 and 6, which, judging from the number of sculptured 
fragments found lying loose on the surface, must have been sections of con- 
siderable importance. 


Before closing this analysis of the Copan inscriptions, it is necessary to 
describe one last text from this site, namely, an engraved peccary skull dating 
from the Early Period, the description of which has been deferred to this 
point in order that it should not interrupt the continuous presentation of the 
monumental sequence. 

This skull was found, with another similarly engraved, by the First 
Peabody Museum Expedition under Saville in 1892 in Tomb 1 just south of 
the Main Structure between Mounds 34 and 36. (See plate 1.) It lay on 
the floor of the tomb by the side of the other skull, and was associated with 
other objects of bone, jade beads and the like, and several skeletons. Spinden 
gives a drawing of it (1913, fig. 210) and an excellent description of the 
design (ibid, p. 151); the part of the inscription presenting the date shown 
in figure 56, a, however, was re- 
drawn by the writer directly from 
the original now in the Peabody 
Museum (catalogue number C. 
201). 

The panel of four glyphs shown 
here is in the center of the top of 
the skull, and is the most conspic- 
uous part of the entire design. It _Fia.s6i-m Tas of nmsision on nssary shul fom 
is flanked by two seated human fig- ¢, Stela 253d, Stela 15;¢, Stela 16. 
ures facing the panel, and elsewhere 
on the top there are three running peccary, a jaguar, a monkey, and other 
human figures and glyphs, the whole beautifully executed in incised lines, 
except for a few of the glyphs on the sides, which are in low relief, made 
by cutting the background somewhat deeper. 





380 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The text opens with the day 1 Ahau in a1 and then follows in B1 a sign 
which the writer long mistook for 8 Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh, followed by 
the end of a tun in a2. But it will be found from Goodman’s tables that no 
tun of Cycle 9 ended on the day 1 Ahau 8 Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh, and for 
a long time this date baffled all efforts looking toward its decipherment. 
Indeed, it was not until the writer’s discovery in 1918 that the “winged 
Cauac”’ sign is a variant of the tun-glyph that decipherment was made possi- 
ble, and it then became apparent that B1, which had previously been mis- 
taken for 8 Chen, Yax, Zac, or Ceh was in reality Tun 8, which in October 
1919 led to the reading given below. 

This text reads: “1 Ahau (a1), Tun 8 (B1), End of a tun (a2), Ahau (?) 
(p2)’’; and referring to Goodman’s tables once more, it will be found that 
the only Tun 8 in Cycle 9 which ended on the day 1 Ahau was 9.7.8.0.0 
t Ahau 3 Ceh, the month being suppressed in the present text, as was not 
infrequently the case. 

9.7.8.0.0 is a fairly early date, but happily a highly unusual feature in 
this text authenticates the correctness of this reading on stylistic grounds 
also. It will be noted that the Ahau-sign, both in a1 and B2 of figure 56, a, 
shows an unusual notch on either side of the face (the inner line in a1 and the 
central element in B2). This is a very unusual characteristic, and so far as 
the writer is aware, is only found in four other texts known: Altar Y, Stela 
25, Stela 15, and Stela 16, all at Copan, dD, c, d, and e, figure 56, respectively, 
all of which are earlier than 9.7.8.0.0, viz.: 


Stela zs: "9.2710.°0.0 
Stela 15 9.4.10. 0.0 
Alarey Bo. Joule es 
Stela 16° 9.7. 2.12.0 


Thus on stylistic grounds (its resemblance to other known dated inscrip- 
tions), the early character of this text is amply substantiated, and is in perfect 
agreement with the early date which it records. 

Slight and apparently adventitious details like this are frequently of 
more importance in establishing general contemporaneity on. stylistic 
grounds between two texts than resemblances between the larger features, 
another case illustrating this point being the protuberances at the corners of 
the day-signs on Stela 3 at Tikal and on Stela 24 at Copan, only 3 years 
apart in date, a feature found in no other inscriptions known. 

Another interesting feature in connection with this text is that it pre- 
sents the earliest example of the use of the “winged-Cauac” variant of the 
tun-sign yet discovered. It shows, moreover, that tun-ending dating was in 
vogue as early as the Early Period of the Old Empire, and as the writer has 
shown elsewhere,! that it continued in practice down to the close of the New 
Empire, a range of more than a thousand years. 

Smaller objects such as this peccary skull were doubtless executed 
whenever fancy dictated, although even here a tun-ending was chosen for 
the contemporaneous date, but the larger monuments, particularly during 





1 Morley, 1919, p. 274, and Appendix II. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 381 


the Early and Middle Periods, were erected only at the hotun-endings. This 
date, although it is not on a monument, has been inserted in its proper 
chronological position between Stela 18 and Stela 7 under the texts from 


the Early Period in Appendix IX. 


This concludes the presentation of the inscriptions of Copan, but before 
proceeding to summarize these data, it appears advisable to describe here 
three other monuments found at sites which undoubtedly drew their artistic 
inspiration from Copan, if indeed they were not colonized directly therefrom— 


<i 


PUERTO CORTEZ 


PUERTO 
BARRIOS 


Eh ArcHAEOLOGICAL SITES 
© MODERN TOWNS 


30 


KILOMETERS 





Fic. 57.—Map showing location of Copan and the principal cities along the southeastern Maya frontier. 


Rio Amarillo on the east bank of the Copan River, 30 kilometers northeast 
of Copan, and Los Higos, across the divide in the Chamelecon Valley, 80 
kilometers northeast of Copan. (See figure 57 for the location of these sites.) 
The first was discovered by the Carnegie Institution Central American 
Expedition of 1917 and the second was “relocated” at the same time, 
although the original discovery of the latter would appear to have been made 
by Squier as early as 1850.1 The map in figure 57 shows clearly the chain of 
sites northeast of Copan, Santa Rita, Rio Amarillo, Paraiso,? Los Higos, 
1 See Morley, 1917¢, pp. 287-289; 19184, p. 276, note; and Squier, 1883, pp. 468-480. 
2 Paraiso is located in a small valley on the divide between the Motagua and Copan Rivers, somewhat nearer 
Quirigua than Copan. (See fig. 57.) The writer visited this site in 1914, but although typical Maya sculp- 
tures—heads, decorative elements, etc.—were found, unfortunately no inscriptions were recovered. The site is 


fairly large and excavations here would doubtless bring to light additional material. The heads examined showed 
rather closer affinities with the art of Copan than with that of Quirigua. 


382 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


and Quirigua, all of which drew their artistic inspiration from the great 
southern metropolis, and all of which were probably colonized therefrom. 
The last four probably date from the close of the Middle Period or the begin- 
ning of the Great Period and are but another expression of that great expan- 
sion which began at Copan in g.11.0.0.0 and continued in ever-widening 
waves for the next century and a quarter. 


ALTARS I AND 2 AT Rio AMARILLO. 


Provenance: On a terrace at the foot of the hills on the east side of 
the Copan River, 30 kilometers northeast of Copan. 
(See figs. 57 and 58.) 


. Date: The Great Period. 
Text, drawing: figures 59 and 60. 
Reference: Morley, 1917c, pp. 287, 288. 
ae 4 ——— 
SS “iy 
. Tif}|\ 





LEGEND 
B@ ALTARS 








Fic. 58.—Plan of the ruins of Rio Amarillo. 


Rio Amarillo is located 30 kilometers northeast of Copan, on the east 
bank of the Copan River, at the foot of the hills on the east side of the valley. 
The road from La Florida to Copan, after emerging from the hills and just 
before crossing to the west bank of the river (see figs. 57 and 58), passes 
along the edge of the terrace where both Altars 1 and 2 lie. 

Altar 1 is approximately square, being 86 cm. long, 84 cm. wide, and 30 
cm. high. The top and bottom are plain, each of the four sides having 3 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 383 


glyph-blocks, or 12 for the entire text. (See fig. 59.) Clear as these are 
on the east, south, and west faces, every sign of which is perfectly legible, 
no one appears to contain data by means of which the position of this altar 
can be fixed in the Long Count; and it is necessary to conclude that the date 
must have been recorded in the first two glyph-blocks on the north side, a, B, 
now unfortunately effaced. (See fig. 59, a.) Many individual glyphs, 














Ean 


CO} O 








Fic. 59.—Inscription on four sides of Altar 1 at Rio Amarillo. 


however, are recognizable. Thus, for example, on the west side (fig. 59, 2) 
pa u. h. contains the day-sign Ahau; pd u. h. is 3 katuns and pé |. h. looks 
like 7 Ix (?); ea 1. h. looks like a head-variant for the day-sign Kan, and Fa 
1. h. is the head of God C. 

On the south side the first glyph, ca u. h. is 4 Cib and Ha 1. h. is the 
winged-Cauac variant of the tun-sign, and on the east side at ja 1. h. the 
day-sign Ahau appears, and again at ka u.h. (here inverted), and again the 
day 1 Ahau in tb u.h. There were 2 or 3 tuns recorded in 1a u.h., but 
unfortunately the coefficient here is partially effaced. In spite of the fact 


384 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


that it is possible to decipher several of the above glyphs, owing to the loss 
of the first two glyph-blocks, a and B, this inscription can not be dated other 
than as falling in the Great Period. 

Altar 2 is slightly smaller than 
Altar 1 and is again approximately 
square, being 67 cm. long, 63 cm. wide, 
and 35 cm. high. Only half of it was 
found, and only one of the two faces on 
this piece is sufficiently preserved to 
make out the inscription (fig. 60). The 
first sign, A, is Ahau, but without any 
coefficient, the two remaining glyphs being undecipherable. The carving is 
of the same character as that on Altar 1, and this altar also may safely be 
referred to the Great Period on stylistic grounds. 





Fic. 60.—Part of inscription on Altar 2 at Rio 
Amarillo. 


LEGEND 
GW STELAE 
@ ROUND ALTARS ' 
@ SCULPTURE 



































STELA 1 








Mi We 
Vy Ni, 


Sue Vy 4, 


- 


YW, 
Gi) A Ni My 


aN VARS \ U7 VY, 








Fic. 61.—Plan of the ruins of Los Higos. 


STELA I AT Los Hicos. 


Provenance: On the west side of the Chamelecon River, 80 kilometers 
northeast of Copan and 30 kilometers northeast of 
La Florida. (See figs. 57 and 61). 


Date: 9.17.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Pax.! 
Text, drawing: figure 62. 
References: Morley, 1917c, pp. 288, 289. 


Morley, 1918a, p. 276, note. 
Squier, 1883, pp. 468-480. 


+ For other monuments recording this same hotun-ending, see Appendix VIII. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 385 


This site is located on the west side of the Chamelecon River, just below 
the Hacienda of Los Higos, from which it takes its name, not more than 200 
meters back from the river-bank. The city was built just where the ground 
begins to rise from the flood-plain, and its long axis runs north and south. 
Behind the city to the west is a rocky hill and cliff which probably supplied 
the building material. 

Approaching from the east or river side over a low platform (W,, fig. 61),! 
one climbs a terrace 3 meters high, along the eastern edge of which there 
is a range of low mounds, 8, T, U, and V. Behind these and some 7 or 8 
meters higher is a second range of fallen buildings, C, D, E, F, and G. North 
of G this third terrace turns to the west and defines the north end of the site. 

Behind this second range of buildings is the Great Plaza, dominated by 
the principal temple, H, which surmounts a pyramid Io or 12 meters high. 
This had stairways on all four sides, but the temple itself faced toward the 
river, 7.¢., west. In the court on the north side of this temple lies Stela 1, 
the only inscription yet found at this site. (See fig. 62.) A torso and 
head (in two pieces) and two small plain altars were found at a, b, and c, 
respectively, figure 61. 

Interest here centers in the stela, which, although badly broken and 
part missing, is a fine example of Maya art during the Great Period, from 
the zenith of which it dates. 

The present height of the several fragments recovered is 1.6 meters, and 
probably another quarter to halfa 
meter is still missing. Itis 43 cm. 
wide and 36cm. thick. The front 
is sculptured with a human figure 
which very closely resembles that 
on Stela B at Copan, both having 
the same kind of turban head- 
dress. (See fig. 62, a and c.) 
The back and sides are inscribed 
with glyphs, on the basis of which | 
arrangement it is to be assigned 
to Class 4 of the Copan stele. 

The inscription, which is 
beautifully clear, opens with an 
Initial Series introducing glyph 
at Al-B2 (fig. 62, b), followed by 
the corresponding Initial Series 
at A3-B5, B9 (f). This records 
the date 9.17.10.7.0 9 Ahau (3 
zec) as follows. Fic. 62.—Inscription on Stela 1 at Los Higos: a, c, sides; b, back. 


Ox. 


=> 
) 6 





(0) 4 
SES 


99) 


<Ssss= 
ASSESS 
PROS 29@e 











1The map of Los Higos shown in figure 61 was made by Mr. John Held, Jr. 


386 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


AI-B2 Initial Series introducing glyph 
A3 9 cycles 

B3 17 katuns 

A4 1o tuns 

B4 7 uinals 

AS o kins 

Bs g Ahau 

Bg [3 Tzec] 


Although the month-sign itself is effaced, the presence of the glyphs of 
the Supplementary Series in a6-a9, the last, Glyph A, appearing in ag, 
renders it practically certain that 3 Tzec was recorded in B9.1 Continuing 
the inspection of this text, there are no decipherable glyphs on the left side 
facing the stela (fig. 62, c), although cs may be the moon-sign with a coeffi- 
cient of 2, which the writer has shown elsewhere may stand for 40 days.? 

The first three glyph-blocks on the right side, pi—p3, figure 62, a, are 
- effaced; the fourth, p4, looks like Imix with a Ben-Ik superfix, and the fifth, 
ps, is half of the Venus-sign. In ps is the day-sign Ahau inverted, and in 
pil Imix again with the Ben-Ik superfix. The last four glyphs, p12—-p15, 
are exceedingly important, since they record a Secondary Series of 7 uinals 
in p12, which if counted backward from the Initial Series will reach the date 
12 Ahau 8 Pax in p14, p15, a hotun-ending, and therefore, in all probability, 
the contemporaneous date of this stela: 

AI-Bs5, Ag _—«—<.17.10..7.0 g Ahau 3 Tzec 


Di2 7-0 backward 
D14, Dis g.17.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Pax 


The decipherment of this text has already been given in connection with 
the discussion of Altar W’ (p. 333), where other examples of this overlapping 
of the current hotun-ending by a few uinals, always less than 18, are given. 
It was shown there, and may be repeated here, that such overlapping prob- 
ably in no way interfered with the character of such monuments as hotun- 
markers, and Stela 1 at Los Higos therefore may be accepted as dating from 
9.17.10.0.0, being about 2 years earlier than the last group of stele in the 
Great Plaza at Copan, C, H, F, and 4, and of exactly the same date as Zo6- 
morph B at Quirigua. 

The relief on this monument is beautifully executed, particularly the 
glyphs, which show a delicacy of treatment and a refinement of detail 
scarcely surpassed by the best work at Copan, with which its date of 9.17.10.0.0, 
that is at the height of the Great Period agrees appropriately.’ 

1 Attention should be called to the unusual form of Glyph X at a8, in this Supplementary Series. This variant 
is only known in three other texts in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum, namely, Stela 20 here at Copan (9.1. 10.0.0) 
(?); the tablet in the Temple of the Cross at Palenque (9.13.0.0.0(?)); and Stela E at Quirigua (9.17.0.0.0), the 
last only 10 years earlier than the contemporaneous date of this stela. 

2 That is, 2 X 20. See Morley, 1916, pp. 384-386. 

3 The writer was enabled to relocate this site, which was discovered by Squier between 60 and 70 years ago and 
subsequently forgotten, by a fortunate co.ncidence which brought together in Guatemala City, in May 1917, 


Professor Marshall Saville, Mr. S. K. Lothrop, and Mr. Basil Booth. Information then received from these three 
gentlemen enabled him to find this site a few weeks later. 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 387 


The beginning of the Great Period at Copan was characterized by a 
remarkable outburst of sculptural activity in the Great Plaza, where the 
first of the Great Period monuments, Stele A and B, were erected, followed 
by Stela D at the end of the next hotun. These monuments ushered in an 
era of elaboration in stone carving, the like of which had never been seen 
before in the city. Delicate details of relief were actually freed from the 
plinth, as in the undercutting of the feather-work in the head-dress of Stela 
B. Indeed, the sculptors of the day were at the Maya esthetic zenith. 
Skillful control of technical processes, developed through several centuries 
of continuous experience, coupled with lofty esthetic ideals, the result of 
increasingly beautiful art productions, had finally brought the Maya to their 
Golden Age, the accrued benefits of which they were now enjoying. 

Somewhat earlier than this, a tremendous project had been inaugurated, 
no less than the construction of the lofty pyramid known as Mound 26, and 
of the magnificent Hieroglyphic Stairway ascending its western side and the 
imposing temple on its summit. It is even possible that this construction 
may have been started as early as 9.13.17.18.9 in the Middle Period; but 
what is certain, however, is that its completion did not take place until 20 
years after the erection of Stela D in 9.15.5.0.0, and further, that after 
the dedication of Stela D probably all sculptors and masons in the city 
were transferred to the more important public works then in course of con- 
struction at the southern end of the Main Structure, namely, the Acropolis 
and the associated pyramids and temples. 

The Hieroglyphic Stairway in particular, with its many glyphs and 
elaborate decorative elements, human figures of heroic size, birds, serpents, 
etc., must have required a large number of skilled artisans for its execution; 
at all events, after Stela D there are no surely dated monuments until after 
the completion of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, Temple 26, and the dedication 
of Stela M at its base, in 9.16.5.0.0. 

The next hotun, 9.16.10.0.0, was marked by Stela N, and then came the 
period of maximum architectural, sculptural, and indeed cultural efflores- 
cence. For the next 20 years there followed a series of brilliant artistic 
achievements, intricately carved altars, gorgeously ornate stele, and mag- 
nificently embellished temples; the city was now rounded into its final form 
as found to-day, and became, in truth, the esthetic center of the Maya world. 

Coming to a more detailed consideration of the monuments, we note 
at the outset a considerable extension in the use of the hieroglyphic inscrip- 
tions. In addition to stele and altars, the latter greatly diversified in type, 
we now find texts inscribed upon hieroglyphic steps and stairways, both 
exterior and interior, door-jambs, and possibly even cornices.! This exten- 
sion of texts beyond the narrower field of stele and altars is of itself an indi- 
cation of “lateness,” and such inscriptions on this ground alone are to be 

1 Although no examples of hieroglyphic cornices have yet been reported at Copan, with the possible exception 


of Fragment Z’, pp. 378, 379, which is doubtful, one was found by the writer at the neighboring city of Quirigua in 
1912 (see Morley, 1913, pp. 347, 352); and it is highly probable that examples of it may yet be recovered at Copan. 


388 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


assigned to the Great Period. For the purposes of this investigation we may 
classify the texts of the Great Period according to the media upon which 
they are presented into four general groups: (1) stele, (2) altars, (3) steps, 
and (4) jambs. The 11 stele of the Great Period may be divided into four 
classes, according to the arrangement of their designs, as follows: 


2.1 Stela having inscriptions on two alternate faces, the two remaining faces 
being plain (Stela 8). 

4.2 Stele having inscriptions on three faces, the fourth being carved with the 
representation of the human figure (Stelz A and B).® 

5. Stelaz having inscriptions on two alternate faces, the remaining two being 
carved with representations of the human figure (Stela C and N). 

6. Stele having inscriptions on the back only, the front and sides being carved 
with representations of a single human figure with increased ornamentation (Stelz 


D, M) Hy yas ander es: 
| The 5 earlier stele of the Great Period, A, B, D, M, and N, all have 


Initial Series and all record hotun-endings. Indeed, all but one, A, have 
their respective hotun-endings recorded by their respective Initial Series. 
Of the 6 in the later group, however, 8, C, H, F, 4, and 11, probably none 
were erected to commemorate hotun-endings, and only one in fact has an 
Initial Series, z.e., Stela 4. Here is a sharp break in practice as contrasted 
with the stele of the Early and Middle Periods and the beginning of the 
Great Period. The earlier stele of the group are regular, the later irregular, 
the break coming after Stela N, in 9.16.10.0.0. 

We have seen that the lahuntun from g.16.10.0.0 to 9.17.0.0.0 was 
characterized by a tremendous outburst of architectural as well as sculptural 
activity, and during the busy days which followed the erection of Stela N, 
Initial Series dating passed out of fashion at Copan. ‘Thus all the final 
stele and temples have their contemporaneous dates recorded as Period 
Endings or simply Calendar Round dates, or not at all. We may therefore 
formulate the following generalization concerning the stele of the Great 
Period, namely: 

During the latter half of the Great Period, the custom of erecting stelz at the 


expiration of the hotuns fell into disuse, and with it also went the custom of record- 
ing Initial Series on any kind of monuments.° 


The altars of the Great Period are as complex as the stele. Of those 
associated with stele, moreover, none present inscriptions. These are 
chiefly of the double-headed-monster type and are exceedingly complex. 
In some cases, as the altars of Stele M and F, for example, they are not even 
monolithic, being built up of several sculptured pieces fitted together. 


1 Class 1 (see p. 125) is not represented in the Great Period. 

* Class 3 (see p. 125) is not represented in the Great Period. 

’ Stela B shows a transition between Classes 4 and 5, in that its back is covered with a large grotesque mask 
instead of a human figure of heroic size. 

“Stela H shows a transition between Classes 5 and 6, having a grotesque mask on its back in addition to the 
glyph-panel. 

5 Only two exceptions, Stela 4 and Fragment E’, need be made, 


INSCRIPTIONS OF THE GREAT PERIOD. 389 


The 221 independent altars described in this chapter as having in- 
scriptions may be divided into a number of types. The rectangular altars 
of the Early and Middle Periods, although represented by a few simple 
examples (S and V) grow larger and more ornate. Grotesque or death’s 
heads fill first one end (R and Z) and later both ends (B’ and C’). Still 
later, as the altars grow larger, more complicated designs are introduced, 
such as figures seated on glyphs and animal forms (D’, W’, L, U, Q, and T). 
A special development of the rectangular altar is the shaft or square column, 
of which O’, F’, and N’ are examples. The round altars of the Early and 
Middle Periods become less frequent and very much smaller (W, T’, and U’), 
reaching the form of a table with legs as their latest development (G’). 

The most elaborate altars of all, however, are the double-headed 
serpents or monsters with glyph-panels in the coils of their bodies (G3, Gas, 
and G,). The dates of Gp and G, indicate that they are probably the latest 
inscriptions at Copan. The same tendency toward flamboyancy noted in 
the stele of the period is also found in the decoration of the altars, and as the 
end drew near made itself increasingly felt. 

Only one of these 22 altars, the earliest, Altar S, records an Initial 
Series, though a number have hotun-endings as their contemporaneous dates 
1.¢., LZ, G3, Q, W’, W, G., and G,. This may, indeed probably does, indi- 
cate the passing of the function of marking the hotun-endings from the stele 
to the altars. While none of the later stele are hotun-markers, most of the 
later altars are, a distinct reversal of the general practice in earlier times.’ 

But the onward sweep of intellectual and esthetic development was 
driving the Copan sculptor even further afield than the mere diversification 
of earlier and familiar forms. The hieroglyphic step came into fashion, 
both as an exterior and an interior element of architectural decoration.’ 
Three examples of the former have been found at Copan, namely, that on 
Mound 2, the Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26, and the Reviewing- 
stand in the Western Court, and three of the latter, the interior steps of 
Temples 11, 22, and 21a. 


1Altar S Altar V eS Altar G» Altar G’ 
it R G, N’ 
Be U ik (Oy ah 
ee Zé W F’ 1 Wee 
D’ Gs 


2 Earlier examples of this later practice may be the altar of Stela t and the West Altar of Stela 5, commemo- 
rating the katun-ending 9.12.0.0.0, and Altars H’ and I’, commemorating the next katun-ending, 9.13.0.0.0. 

3 The earliest use of the hieroglyphic step or stairway is probably at Palenque, in House C of the Palace group. 
(See plate 1.) The Initial Series on this stairway is 9.8.9.13.0, but this is brought forward into Katun 11, 12, or 13 
by a Secondary Series. The Initial Series on the hieroglyphic stairway at Naranjo commences with an early date, 
g.10.10.0.0, but Secondary Series present in this inscription may bring this date forward, perhaps to Katun 
18 or 19. 

Maler’s glowing account of a hieroglyphic stairway on Structure 5 at Yaxchilan hardly appears justifiable: 
“This hieroglyphic stairway of structure 5 of Yaxchilan is the most magnificent one I have ever seen” (Maler, 
1903, p. 122). In 1914 the writer could hardly satisfy himself that these steps had ever been inscribed with glyphs 
at all. 

The next use of the hieroglyphic step would appear to have been here at Copan in the Hieroglyphic Stairway 
of Mound 26. In 9.16.0.0.0 we find it at Seibal; and the latest occurrence is at Quirigua, in Structure 1, where 
the date 9.19.0.0.0 is recorded, as a Period Ending. 

The custom of inscribing both the risers and treads of steps (see the stairway of House C of the Palace Group 
at Palenque, Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1v, plate 23) never seems to have come into general use. 


390 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Not content with this ornate feature of decoration, in the broad current 
of flamboyancy now in full swing, door-jambs were next subjected to hiero- 
glyphic treatment (Temples 26, 11, and 18), and possibly also exterior 
cornices (Fragment Z’ at Group 4). But at last the end was at hand. This 
costly process of intellectual exhaustion, leading so surely to decadence and 
ultimate futility, was stopped at its most brilliant moment probably by that 
same catastrophe which overwhelmed all the cities of the Old Empire about 
10.2.0.0.0, but which appeared at Copan three-quarters of a century earlier. 

About the middle of Katun 16, coincident indeed with the important 
date 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol, the mastery of technical processes be- 
came so complete that contemporary esthetic ideals were released from all 
practical limitations of material or treatment, and at once soared to flam- 
boyant heights; and during the closing half century of the city’s history 
(9.16.10.0.0 to 9.19.0.0.0) this tendency carried sculpture into a variety of 
new media and led eventually to a condition which was only saved from 
decline by the abandonment of the region and the migration of its inhabi- 
tants elsewhere. 


CHAPTER V. 


CONCLUSIONS. 
GENERAL COMPARISONS. 


The inscriptions of Copan are more numerous than those of any other 
Maya site, or indeed of any other three combined, constituting possibly 
as high as 40 per cent of the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum, and in their 
chronologic range covering 335 years, or the greater part of the Old Empire. 
These two factors—the large amount of material available for study and the 
long period covered by the dated monuments—thus make Copan the best 
fitted of all the Maya cities at which to investigate the chronology of the 
Old Empire. 

In the important field of the Initial Series alone, for example, as will be 
seen from the following table, Copan stands preeminent, having about one 
third of all the Initial Series known—sg9! out of 177—and as many as those 
of her three nearest competitors in this respect combined, namely, Piedras 
Negras, Quirigua, and Naranjo: 


ona eo. ee ROP Jakactun nth... wo Oven panto... ... 2 |-Chichen Itza..7. 1 
Pieisadsweprasy ee solilikal. Wks. is,, 6 |'Ocosingo) ...:.4 Pa liolactin 23.0.4. I 
‘POET STE reg OR a Pea rontadenaee..0 5. )¢0) Pabellon. 4. (1) Laluum.... +... I 
MTANIO.. a. = - DL eSNG ey tee 5) El Cayo. 2... 1 | Leyden Plate... 1 
axchilansics.iec TOMAS KUIE. & Cems. Piivasiawe se. Jol) Luxtia statuette, ' 
Palenque....... Cua ital Ge naC. on. 2a LOS Higoss .. 4-6 I (re ham 177 


All the features noticeable in the inscriptions of the other cities, 
moreover, are found at Copan, and some of them, indeed, may have been 
inaugurated here. Take, for example, the custom of erecting the stele at 
the ends of even periods of the Long Count, instead of at odd times, a prac- 
tice which became the controlling factor in the erection of monuments 
throughout the Maya area, and persisted for more than thirteen centuries. 

It will be seen in a later section, page 396, that the three earliest 
Initial Series known, those on the Tuxtla Statuette, the Leyden Plate, and 
Stela 9 at Uaxactun, do not conform to this practice, but that, on the con- 
trary, they record dates which do not stand at the ends, even of tuns or 
uinals of the Long Count. 

The first certain example of this practice is on Stela 24 at Copan, in 
9.2.10.0.0, although, in all probability, Stela 20 at the same site records the 
next previous lahuntun-ending, 9.1.10.0.0. The earliest known date at 
Tikal, Copan’s only great contemporary at this time, 9.2.13.0.0 on Stela 3, 











1This number, moreover, does not include those Initial Series on the Hieroglyphic Stairway that were 
destroyed, of which there must have been at least ro. 


391 


392 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


does not conform to this practice; and although it is possible earlier hotun- 
endings may yet be found there,' the custom does not appear to have been 
followed so closely as at Copan. 

This practice, with varying modifications, continued in force down to 
the close of the New Empire in Yucatan, and is mentioned by several of the 
early Spanish and native writers.2 It was indeed one of the oldest of all 
Maya institutions, and, so far as the stele are concerned, it was the most 
important factor in determining the dates of their erection. 

Another feature of Maya chronology, possibly inaugurated at Copan, 
was the gradual abandonment of Initial Series dating and the coincidental 
increase of Period Ending dating during the last half of the Great Period. 
Of the cities of Classes I and II given on page 441, with the exception of 
Nakum, where Initial Series have not been found at all, and of Palenque, 
which may have been abandoned before this time, Copan was the first to 
discard this cumbersome but extremely accurate method of dating, the last 
Initial Series there being carved in 9.17.12.13.0 (Stela 4) as compared with 
9.18.3:1.5 at Yaxchilan (small altar near Stela 1), 9.18:5.0.0 at /icares 
Negras (Stela 12), 9.18.10.0.0 at Naranjo (Stele 8, 12, and 28), 9.19.0.0.0 
at Quirigua (Structure 1), and 10.2.0.0.0 at Tikal (Stela 11). 

A glance at the fourth column in Appendix IX, which gives the kinds 
of dates on the different monuments at Copan, 7.e., whether Initial Series, 
Period Ending, or Calendar Round, this condition appears clearly. During 
the Early and Middle Periods, Initial Series are the almost invariable rule; 
indeed, in the Middle Period there is not a single stela without one; but 
after 9.17.12.13.0 (Stela 4) they stop at Copan, the closing hotun-endings, 
9.18.0.0.0, 9.18.5.0.0, and 9.18.10.0.0 being marked by Period Ending dates 
on altars instead. 

The Initial Series method of dating required eight glyphs to express 
any single date of the Maya Era, and was correspondingly costly of space 
and effort. The Secondary Series was probably developed very early to 
escape from such a tedious process when more than one date had to be 
recorded on the same monument, and as early as 9.4.10.0.0 (Altar Q’) Period 
Ending dating, as applied to lahuntuns, was in use at Copan, and as early as 
9.7.8.0.0 as applied to any tun (inscribed peccary skull from Tomb 1). 

By the middie of the Great Period this method of dating was beginning 
to supersede the Initial Series, in some cities altogether, as for example at 





! There are two stele at Tikal, Nos. 8 and 9, which the writer believes he may possibly have deciphered correctly 
as 9.0.10.0.0 and 9.2.0.0.0 respectively. On the west side of Stela 8 (see Maler, 1911, plate 19, 1), A6 1s an ending- 
sign in which the hand element is very conspicuous, and following this in A7 appears to be the day 7 Ahau. Assum- 
ing this is a katun or lahuntun-ending, by no means certain, however, the only two positions where this day could 
have occurred in the Early Period are at 9.0.10.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Yax and 9.7.0.0.0 7 Ahau 3 Kankin, and since this 
latter date is too late on stylistic grounds to be possible, the former may be the date of thissmonument. The date 
suggested for Stela g seems more certain. ‘The west side of this stela (see ibid., plate 20, 1) opens with a hand 
ending-sign at AI; in A2 there appears to be either 4 or 2 katuns, and in a3 the day 4 Ahau. The only katun in 
the Early Period ending on a day 4 Ahau was 9.2.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Uo, and therefore, in spite of the fact that the 
katun coefficient in a2 looks more like 4 than 2, the latter would appear to be the better reading, and 9.2.0.0.0, 
the probable date of this stela. These two readings are so doubtful, however, that they have been disregarded in 
the comparisons and conclusions which follow. 


2 See Appendix VII. 


GENERAL COMPARISONS. 393 


Seibal and Nakum, where the earliest dates are 9.16.0.0.0 and 9.17.0.0.0 
respectively, and at neither of which is there a single Initial Series known; 
and by the end of the Old Empire the Initial Series had disappeared every- 
where except at Tikal (Stela 11). 

In the New Empire, barring the three Initial Series at Chichen Itza 
(Temple of the Initial Series), Holactun (Temple of the Initial Series), and 
Tuluum (Stela 1), Initial Series dating had disappeared entirely, to be 
replaced by Period Ending dating and especially by tun-ending dating. 

The Carnegie Institution Central American Expedition of 1918 estab- 
lished this latter fact from its investigations in Yucatan, and further, that it 
was the unusual “winged-Cauac”’ variant of the tun-sign, which was used 
in these late New Empire tun-ending dates;! and very recently the writer 
has discovered this same variant on an inscribed peccary skull from Tomb 1 
at Copan (see page 380), mentioned above, which proves that use of this 
sign in this connection extended back to the Early Period of the Old Empire, 
or that it was in use for more than a thousand years. 

The development of the art of stone-carving among the Maya may best 
be studied at Copan in all its stages, save only the very beginnings. As 
already noted in Chapter II (see pages 54, 76), and to be described further ina 
later section, the earliest style of glyph delineation is found most extensively 
at Tikal. This is characterized by 


1. Very low, flat relief. 
2. Irregular, non-rectangular outlines of the individual glyph-blocks. 
3. General absence of specialized elements to denote the different signs. 


These early characteristics are best exemplified in the Tuxtla Statuette 
and the Leyden Plate, but omitting both from consideration on the ground 
that they are smaller antiquities and not large monolithic monuments, the 
same characteristics are to be found on the earliest monuments, as, for 
example, Stela 9 at Uaxactun, and Stele 4, 7, 8,9, and 13 at Tikal, and 
Stela 20 at Copan. Indeed, the outlines of the glyphs on Stela 9 at Uaxactun 
and Stele 8 and 9 at Tikal are so irregular as forcibly to suggest the carving 
of the Leyden Plate, where this characteristic is so pronounced. 

It is suggested in a later section that the origin of the Maya hieroglyphic 
writing, or even its transfer from an earlier medium such as wood to stone, 
need not be looked for at Copan, where the scarcity of inscriptions (indeed 
only one, Stela 20) which present this most reliable of all the criteria of 
antiquity, is probably to be interpreted as indicating that the Maya graphic 
system was developed elsewhere. 

But except for these very earliest stages of the hieroglyphic writing on 
stone, Copan is the best place at which its evolution may be traced, because 
of the greater abundance of material here than anywhere else. 

The rigid rectangular outlines of the glyph-blocks with corners only 
slightly rounded seems to have been developed first at Copan (Stela 24), as 





1 Morley, 19184, pp. 272-274. 


394 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


well as the lavish wealth of detail, double-lining, cross-hatching, and the 
ornamentation of numerical elements such as the bar and dot, with interior 
decorations. 

Gradually, as the Old Empire wore on, these features became more 
simplified. The bar-and-dot elements lose their interior decoration and 
become plain, extensive double-lining, cross-hatching, and ornate details 
disappear, and the whole treatment becomes freer and simpler. Along with 
these developments went an increasing depth of relief. In the earliest texts 
the carving is very flat and low, but later it begins to stand out from the 
body of the monument, the background being cut back farther and farther 
until in the last group of stele in the Great Plaza it is from 10 to 12 cm. deep. 

A consistent development is also seen at Copan in the arrangement of 
the design in the stela type of monument, of which there are 36. While 
this does not follow a strictly chronologic order in the monumental sequence 
as a whole, the several “schools” or classes of monuments clearly were of 
successive origin, as the following table shows: 


Period. Date. Class 1(2).|Class 2(4). Class 3 (9). Class 4 (11)./Class 5(4).|Class 6 (6). 


——* 
\O 
_ 
_ 
ie) 
° 
e) 
— 
wv 
— 
nm 
o 
= 
~ 
bdo 
° 


CeKRG OCHO eIe ce areca d Tells & © 6 @ «> wile os ale Meteneee 


96 2.10. 20s; 2] ee See eee Stela 15 .i25 ccia's Jets ear obinieley ya ae ste ee 


Ratlv oe 








hats: TNE Nn Ace) eel on eee ns Stela ti,.:«}. sek) eee 


Middle... .¢ 


x 
No Ro RNomololNe) 

_ 

be 

mn 
O70: OF 0500 

fo) 

wn 

ct 

us 

~ 

i 








Great...... cs a PS Crees ia ene hI ate LN le Stela rr. 


Voom om om ol ol ole) 
ee . 

ON 

_ 
BRdHNHM OMN CO 
99090000 

WM 

md 

©. 

~p 


I 
| 
~~ 











The simplest arrangement possible is where only one face is sculptured, 
the remaining three faces being plain but dressed (Class 1), of which there 
are only 2 examples. The next is that where two alternate faces are sculp- 
tured, the remaining two being plain but dressed (Class 2). This arrange- 
ment was introduced as early as 9.2.10.0.0, and 4 examples of it have been 
found. 


GENERAL COMPARISONS. 395 


Possibly as early as 9.1.10.0.0, and certainly not later than 9.4.10.0.0, 
the all-glyphic stela was introduced, 7. ¢., inscriptions on all four faces (Class 
3), which was destined to endure for more than two centuries. This class is 
represented by 9 monuments. 

The first representation of the human figure on stele was possibly as 
early as 9.7.0.0.0 and certainly not later than 9.9.0.0.0, the back and sides 
being devoted to the inscriptions (Class 4). This class persisted for about 
160 years, disappearing at the beginning of the Great Period. It has 11 
examples. | 

Stele having human figures sculptured on two faces, the remaining 
two faces being inscribed with glyphs (Class 5), first appear in 9.11.0.0.0, and 
lasted for about 125 years. This class, however, is limited to 4 examples. 

Early in the Great Period, the apparel of the human figure became so 
elaborate that the glyph-panel was crowded around on to the back of the 
stela, the sides being given over to the sweeping plumes of the head-dress 
or other details of the clothing (Class 6). This is the latest class of stela at 
Copan and lasted until the end, 7. ¢., for about 45 years. It has 6 examples. 

The chronologic sequence of these several classes is very satisfactory 
and is only broken in two places, Stela 20, the earliest stela, being in Class 3 
instead of Class 1, the simplest arrangement, and Stela 8, a late stela being 
in an early class, 7.¢., a late return to an earlier arrangement, which had gone 
out of fashion more than two centuries before the date of its erection; but 
aside from these two exceptions the several classes follow each other in a 
consistent chronologic order. 

The same applies to the altar type of monument, although in this type 
the chronologic sequence of the individual monuments has not been so 
rigidly adhered to. On the basis of shape, they may be divided into the 
following classes: 

1. Anthropomorphic altars, of which only 2 examples are known, the very 
crude examples under the foundations of Stele 5 and 4, which may not be altars 
at all. (See fig. 67, a and D.) 

2. Rectangular altars, 27 examples: (a) the earliest group being banded, 
J’, K’, L’, M’, P’, Q’, X, Y, A’, F’, and the altar of Stela 6; (0) the middle group 
being without decoration: K, H’, I’, and V; (c) the late group being decorated 
with other and more complex designs: L, Q, S, and T with seated human or animal 
figures, B’, C’, and R with death-heads, D’ and T with toads sprawled across their 
tops, U and Z with grotesque heads, W’ with the double-headed monster, and N’ 
with a human figure. 

3. Round altars, 12 examples: (a) a plain undecorated group: the altars of 
Stele E, 19, 23, 5 (2), and 1, and Altars T’ and U’; (4) a banded group, the altar 
of Stela I and Altars 14,! W, and G’. 

4. Irregular-shaped altars, such as Altars G,, G2, G3, and O, and all other 
altars not included in one or other of the above classes. 


Omitting Class 1 as doubtful, the earliest type of altar at Copan is the 
rectangular altar, Class 2. At first this is decorated with an arrangement 


1 Altars 14 and O have no inscription, for which reason neither has been described in Chapters I-IV. The 
former probably may be assigned to the Middle Period and the latter surely to the Great Period on stylistic grounds. 


396 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


of intersecting bands, but later these disappear, and during the Middle 
Period and early in the Great Period the altars of this class are plain. Still 
later the designs become more elaborate, consisting of seated human and 
animal figures, death-heads, grotesque heads, toads, double-headed mon- 
sters, and even the human figure. Class 2 altars are the commonest type 
of altar at Copan. 

The round altar (Class 3) is first found at the close of the Early Period 
in 9.9.5.0.0 and lasted down to 9.18.0.0.0, having its greatest development 
in the Middle Period. 

The irregular-shaped altar (Class 4) is a development of the Great 
Period, 9.17.0.0.0, and persisted down to the end, 9.18.10.0.0. 

~The above classification of the altars at Copan, while not so satisfactory 
as that of the stele, shows nevertheless considerable evidence of the chron- 
ologic order of the classes, the rectangular altars appearing first in the 
Early Period, the round altars appearing next at the end of the Early Period, 
reaching their greatest development in the Middle Period, and the irregular- 
shaped altars appearing last in the Great Period, a consistent development 
conforming with the increasing complexity of sculptural art as the Old 
Empire advanced. 

In addition to the two foregoing types of monuments, stele, and altars, 
the inscriptions at Copan are presented upon steps, both interior and exte- 
rior, stairways, wall-panels, both interior and exterior, and possibly even cor- 
nices, but the last-mentioned medium, with the exception of the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway, is a late development, not appearing until the Great Period, 
at which time Maya art was at its zenith and the Maya sculptors were 
literally reaching out in all directions for new fields in which to express their 
esthetic feelings. 


PROBABLE FUNCTION OF THE MAYA MONUMENTS. 


From this study of the Copan inscriptions, it appears possible to indi- 
cate, in a general way at least, the probable function of the Maya monu- 
ments. At first, and during the period before Copan was founded, the mon- 
uments would appear to have been erected to commemorate specific events, 
such as actual historical happenings or current astronomical phenomena, 
examples of which are the Tuxtla Statuette, the Leyden Plate, and Stela 9 at 
Uaxactun, dating from 8.6.2.4.17, 8.14.3.1.12, and 8.14.10.13.15 respectively. 

Very early, however, possibly shortly after the beginning of Cycle 9, 
if the writer’s reading of 9.0.10.0.0 for Stela 8 at Tikal is correct, and cer- 
tainly by 9.1.10.0.0 or 9.2.10.0.0, when the first stela was erected at Copan, 
this custom changed, and thereafter, instead of erecting monuments to com- 
memorate such events, which in the very nature of the case had to be after 
the events had taken place, the practice was introduced of erecting the 
stele on the very days the events took place, namely, at the expiration of 
successive divisions of the Long Count. 


PROBABLE FUNCTION OF THE MAYA MONUMENTS. 397 


A very obvious and natural reason for this change is suggested by the 
Maya method of counting time, 7. ¢., in terms of elapsed units, which kept 
the priests continually looking forward to a date which would close the 
current period, not backward to a date that had already passed. Their con- 
ception of time was such that they were always planning ahead, waiting for 
a future date which, when it arrived, closed a current time-period for them. 
Instead of erecting monuments to inaugurate new time periods, therefore, 
they erected them to commemorate the passage of elapsed ones. It was not 
the first day of the New Year which was of ceremonial importance to them 
as it is to us, but the Jast day of the Old Year. When a time period was 
finished and its corresponding monument erected, the priests were done with 
it, and were already looking forward to and preparing for the next period- 
marker. Any other procedure, such as erecting monuments after the occur- 
rence of the events they were to commemorate, must have been more or less 
upsetting to Maya psychology and contrary to their general conception of 
time. And thus, possibly even to obviate some such a feeling as this, there 
grew up the practice of selecting, 7 advance of the dates of actual dedication, 
the dates upon which the monuments were to be erected. This procedure 
had the very practical advantage of giving the priests ample opportunity 
to prepare for the important occasions which these period-endings were— 
a preparation, indeed, which must have required a great deal of time. 

First the block of stone had to be quarried and from it the stela roughly 
shaped. Next it had to be transported, sometimes for a distance of several 
kilometers, to the site where it was to be erected, and there set up in pre- 
viously prepared foundations.! The transporting of blocks of stone weighing 
sometimes as high as 50 tons (Stela FE, Quirigua), was of itself no small 
undertaking, and must have taxed the resourcefulness of the rulers not a 
little. The method probably followed was to use logs as rollers, which could 
be had in all sizes, of excellent hardwoods, and in unlimited quantities in the 
forests nearby, and to drag the blocks over these. The forests also pro- 
vided an abundance of natural ropes, lianas, hanging vines, and the like, 
and with these simple expedients and plenty of labor the monoliths were 
eventually moved from the quarries to the cities and erected in their ap- 
pointed places. 

But this was only half the undertaking. Before a monument could be 
put into formal use, that is, dedicated, it had to be sculptured, and such are 
the intricacies of the inscriptions and other designs that it is absolutely 
necessary to assume that the sculptors who executed them had working- 
drawings of the designs constantly before their eyes. 

The inscriptions, as we have seen, contain many fairly complicated 
calculations which had to be worked out in advance of the dates they dealt 
with, and probably were written down on paper or skin or wood to serve as 


1 These foundations, as noted more than once in the preceding chapters, are sometimes of an elaborate nature, 
cruciform subterranean chambers built of stone, over which the stele were set up, their bases held in sockets formed 
by surrounding slabs. Such constructions, made of cut stone, had to be prepared in advance, and demanded 
codrdinated activities. 


398 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


working-drawings for the sculptors, whose business it was to transfer these 
data and designs to the monuments themselves. 

All these labors consumed much time, and it thus became necessary 
to select, in advance of the time of actual dedication, the exact date upon 
which the ceremony itself was to be celebrated, 1.¢., the date upon which the 
monument was to be formally put into use, dedicated; in short, its con- 
temporaneous date. And so the writer believes the ends, first of the katuns 
next of the lahuntuns, and finally of the hotuns, were chosen for this purpose. 

That the katun-endings were chosen first rests upon the purely hypo- 
thetical ground that the katun would appear to be the best fitted period of 
the Maya chronological system available for this purpose. The tun was too 
short; it would have made the dates for the erection of stela come around 
too frequently. The katun, the next higher period in their system of numer- 
ation, however, came to an end only once every 20 years, and, in the very 
beginning at least, this would have been often enough for the struggling 
young cities to have undertaken such an ambitious project. 

On the other hand, the archeological evidence at Copan seems to indicate 
that the half-katuns, the lahuntuns, were the periods at first selected for this 
purpose. The three earliest surely deciphered monuments at Copan, Stele 24, 
15, and 9, all record lahuntun-endings, 9.2.10.0.0, 9.4.10.0.0, and 9.6.10.0.0 
respectively, and the earliest on stylistic grounds, Stela 20, probably does 
also, 9.1.10.0.0. In fact, the earliest surely deciphered katun-ending does 
not occur until 9.9.0.0.0, or 128 years after the first lahuntun-ending, 
unless the reading suggested for Stela 9 at Tikal, 9.2.0.0.0, be accepted as 
correct. Nevertheless, the writer is inclined to believe that the katun- 
endings were first used for this purpose, and that at first it was the custom 
to erect monuments only at the end of every 20-year period, and not until 
later, when the Maya had grown more powerful, 7. ¢., after they had reached 
Copan for example, were the 10-year periods also similarly commemorated. 

Thus, on the evidence furnished by Stele 20, 24, 15, and 9 above, it 
appears probable that by the time the Maya founded Copan they were able 
to erect stele at 10-year intervals, in which case the stele commemorating 
the earlier katun-endings, 9.2.0.0.0, 9.3.0.0.0, 9.4.0.0.0, and 9.5.0.0.0 either 
still lie buried somewhere in the valley or they have been destroyed, or even 
more probable, all the early katun-endings may not have been thus marked, 
and stele recording some of these dates may never have been erected. 

The earliest certain first or third hotun-marker known is Stela 25 at 
Piedras Negras in 9.8.15.0.0, ten years earlier than the earliest now known 
at Copan, 7.¢., Stela E in 9.9.5.0.0; but from this time onward the practice of 
marking the expiration of the five-year periods became the general rule and 
persisted down almost to the end of the Old Empire, except at the smaller 
cities, where sometimes the lahuntun-endings were used instead. (See Ap- 
pendix VII for further discussion of this practice.) 

It was stated in Chapter I, page 46, that the record of the Initial, 
Supplementary, and Secondary Series and Period Ending and Calendar 


PROBABLE FUNCTION OF THE MAYA MONUMENTS. 399 


Round dates fills about half of the average Maya text, but in some inscrip- 
tions, the proportion will run much higher even than this. Thus, for 
example, on Altar W (see page 365), there are only two glyphs, one record- 
ing the day and the other the month of the Calendar Round date 11 Ahau 
18 Mac; in other words, this text is 100 per cent deciphered. Or again, on a 
round altar near Stela 1 at Yaxchilan there are only eight glyphs, the first 
seven of which record the Initial Series 9.18.3.1.5 11 Chicchan (8 Kankin), 
the month being suppressed. Here only the last glyph is of unknown mean- 
ing, or, in other words, this text is 87.5 per cent deciphered. Such cases, 
however, are rare, and considered as a whole the Maya inscriptions may be 
said to be not more than 50 per cent deciphered. ‘The above texts have been 
cited here only to illustrate the great importance which the Maya attached 
to the element of time, and possibly as tending to indicate that time in its 
different phases may even have been the chief content of their inscriptions. 

The above counts except the Supplementary Series deal with the fixing 
of specific dates in Maya chronology. We will examine some of these further. 

It was stated in the beginning of this section that the earliest Initial 
Series known do not record the ends of even periods of the Long Count, but 
that by the time the Maya had reached Copan this practice had undergone 
a change; and from this time on, the monuments, in the very great majority 
of cases, were erected at the ends of such periods. A further study of the 
six earliest surely deciphered monuments at Copan, Stele 24, 15, 9, 7, E, 
and P, shows that five of them have the period-endings they were erected to 
commemorate recorded as their corresponding Initial Series. 

But in the case of Stela E, for the first time at Copan at least, although 
there is an earlier example at Piedras Negras (Stela 25), we find a slightly 
different condition. On Stela E the Initial Series is neither a hotun-ending 
nor the contemporaneous date of the monument, but an irregular date prior 
thereto, and the contemporaneous date, which is a hotun-ending, is recorded 
by a Secondary Series later on in the text. This new departure from the 
older practice became very popular elsewhere in the Old Empire and is only 
slightly less frequent at Copan, where it appears on the following monuments: 
Stela E, 19, 10 (?), 1, I, 5, A, the west altar of Stela 5, the altar of Stela 1, 
Altar H’, and Altar I’. 

The following examples from Copan, Naranjo, Piedras Negras, and 
Quirigua will illustrate its use: 





Copan, Srexa I. NARANJO, STELA 24, PiepRAs NEGRAS, STELA 3. QUIRIGUA, STELA F. 
9.12.3.14.0 Initial Series 9.12.10. 5.12 Initial Series | 9.12. 2. 0.16 Initial Series | 9.14.13. 4.17 Initial Series 
1. 4.0 bs eialo 12:10: 0 13: 9..9 
9.12.5. 0.0 Period Ending} 9.12.15.13. 7 9.12.14.10.16 9.15. 6.14. 6 
and contempco- Tae se: ck iat dO 9.14.13. 4.17 repeated 
raneous date SESE ia io ee ts! 9.13.16. 4. 6 116.1353 
D412 ats, eles: 9.16.10. 0. O second Initial 
9.13.10. 0. O Period End-| 9.13.19.13. 1 Series and 
ing and con- 4.19 contempo- 
temporane-| 9.14. 0. 0. 0 second Initial raneous date 
ous date Series and 
contempo- 





raneous date 


400 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


In the first example above, the inscription starts with the Initial Series, 
9.12.3.14.0, which a single Secondary Series number brings forward to the 
current hotun-ending, 9.12.5.0.0, the contemporaneous date of the monu- 
ment. This is the customary, although not the invariable, practice at 
Copan, where there is usually not more than one intermediate date between 
the Initial Series date and the contemporaneous date. 

The second example begins with the Initial Series, 9.12.10.5.12, which 
three Secondary Series numbers, 5.7.15, 11.8.1, and 2.14.12, reaching 
two intermediate dates, bring forward to the contemporaneous date, the 
lahuntun-ending 9.13.10.0.0, nearly a katun later. 

The third example begins with the Initial Series 9.12.2.0.16, which 
four Secondary Series, 12.10.0, I.1.11.10, 3.8.15, and 4.19 bring forward to 
the contemporaneous date, the katun-ending 9.14.0.0.0. On the front of 
this monument this is recorded as a Period Ending date, but on the side it 
is repeated as an Initial Series. 

The fourth example above begins with an Initial Series, 9.14.13.4.17, 
which one Secondary Series, 13.9.9, brings forward to an important inter- 
mediate date, and which another, 1.16.13.3, also proceeding from the Initial 
Series date direct, brings down to the contemporaneous date, the lahuntun- 
ending 9.16.10.0.0, also repeated as an Initial Series on one of the sides. 

Analyzing these data, we find in every case that the opening date is not 
at the end of any particular period of the Long Count, but is a date which 
was apparently determined by some historical event or astronomical phe- 
nomenon. ‘This odd date is brought forward in every case, however, by one 
or more Secondary Series numbers to the particular hotun-ending which each 
of the above monuments was erected to commemorate. 

Let us examine the case of Stela 3 at Piedras Negras somewhat further. 
The previous hotun-ending at this city, 9.13.15.0.0, was commemorated by 
the erection of Stela 1, and the following hotun-ending, 9.14.5.0.0, by the 
erection of Stela 5. That is, it seems fair to assume Stela 3 must have been 
quarried, transported, erected, and sculptured between 9.13.15.0.0, the 
previous hotun-ending, and its own contemporaneous date, 9.14.0.0.0, five 
years later. But on the other hand, the first two dates on it, 9.12.2.0.6 and 
9.12.14.10.16, are approximately 38 years and 26 years earlier than its con- 
temporaneous date, and thus lie without the hotun which it was erected to 
commemorate, 7.¢., the hotun ending in 9.14.0.0.0. The same condition 
also obtains in regard to the first two dates on Stela F at Quirigua and the 
first two on Stela 24 at Naranjo, both pairs lying without the spans of the 
hotuns these monuments were respectively erected to commemorate. The 
above stele, moreoever, are no exception to the general rule, and it will be 
seen that the contemporaneous dates are quite as frequently recorded by 
Period Ending or Calendar Round dates, particularly in the Middle and 
Great Periods, as by Initial Series, and finally that the Initial Series fre- 
quently precede the corresponding contemporaneous dates by several years 
or decades, and in a few instances even by many centuries. 


PROBABLE FUNCTION OF THE MAYA MONUMENTS. 40! 


There remains to be considered the Supplementary Series, a more 
detailed description of which will be found in Appendix VI. First of all, it 
may be accepted as proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Supple- 
mentary Series is a lunar count, and that it never occurs without an accom- 
panying Initial Series. The principal data set forth in this count may be 
summarized as follows: 

1. Glyph A declares the kind of month, 7. ¢. whether composed of 29 or 30 
days, in which the accompanying Initial Series date falls. 

2. Glyph C probably declares the position of this month in a group composed 
of 5 or 6 such months, that is, whether it was the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, 
or sixth division of such a group; and the length of this larger lunar period, formed 
by grouping together 5 or 6 such months, seems to have depended in some as yet 
undetermined way upon the eclipse phenomenon, certainly of the sun, possibly 
of the moon, and possibly even of both. (See Appendix VI.) 

3. Glyphs D and E in some way further amplify the data set forth in Glyph C. 

4. Glyph X declares still further data, the nature of which still remains inde- 
terminate. 


The three remaining glyphs of the Supplementary Series, B, F, and G, 
are constant non-numerical signs, probably having some generalized mean- 
ing such as “here ends the diurnal count”’ and “‘here begins or ends the lunar 
count,” and in no way change the meanings of the different Supplementary 
Series in which they occur. In this latter respect they probably play a much 
less important role than the Initial Series introducing glyphs do in the mean- 
ing of the Initial Series, for in the latter glyph the variable elements change 
according to some unknown law in the different Initial Series, while in the 
Supplementary Series, Glyphs B, F, and G, except for minor and probably 
unessential stylistic differences, always remain the same. It should be 
noted, moreover, that these lunar and eclipse data are given only for Initial 
Series dates, and that except for those very rare cases, eight in number,! 
where two Initial Series are recorded on the same monument, only one Sup- 
plementary Series appears on each monument. 

In summing up all the foregoing evidence as to the nature and probable 
function of the Maya stele, it appears possible to state the following general 
conclusions concerning them: 

1. They were period-markers erected to commemorate the passage of suc- 
cessive units of the Maya Era. 

2. The unit chosen for this purpose was at first the katun, later the lahuntun, 
and still later, at the height of the Old Empire, the hotun. 

3. The Initial and Secondary Series, Period Ending, and Calendar Round 
dates record specific days in the Maya chronological era, and the Supplementary 
Series set forth certain lunar and eclipse data concerning the Initial Series dates 

which they respectively accompany. 


The record of the information given in No. 3 above exhausts approxi- 
mately 50 per cent of the Maya glyphs, and what have we? ‘The con- 


1 Tikal, Stela 17; Yaxchilan, Stela 11; Copan, Stela 3; Piedras Negras, Stela 1 and 3; and Quirigua, Stelz D, 
E, and F; the two Initial Series on the Tikal stela, as well as the two on the Yaxchilan stela, in each case recording 
the same date. 








402 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


temporaneous dates of the monuments, and occasionally other associated 
dates which were astronomically or historically important at the time, and 
finally certain lunar and eclipse data pertaining thereto, in short, we have 
used up half of the signs in setting forth these few matters. 

The meaning of the remaining half of the inscriptions is largely a sealed 
book as yet, and here if anywhere we must look for the subject-matter of 
Maya history. Judging from the glyphs already deciphered, this would 
hardly seem to be a particularly promising field, but happily, with the above 
three numerical counts out of the way (the Initial, Supplementary, and 
Secondary Series), there appear to remain in the undeciphered glyphs very 
few of a numerical nature, and we may possibly look forward with some 
degree of confidence to finding, among the latter, place-names, personal- 
names, and signs of generalized meaning, by the aid of which we will event- 
ually be able to fill in the background of Maya history as successfully as 
we have already constructed its chronological framework. 


THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA CIVILIZATION. 


As pointed out in Chapter I, the Maya have been variously derived by 
one authority or another from Egypt, Carthage, Java, and southern India, 
even the lost continent of Atlantis having competed at one time for the 
honor of their origin. Lord Kingsborough, in nine costly volumes, sought 
to trace their descent from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and Le Plongeon, 
reversing this at least usual order of procedure, tried to people the Old 
World from the New, believing Egypt to have been colonized from Yucatan 
more than 11,000 years ago.! Unfortunately, these highly improbable 
hypotheses have not entirely disappeared before the advance of the science, 
since the Egyptian connection has been revived recently by Smith on the 
basis of erroneous identifications and purely superficial similarities. (See 
note 4, page 28.) 

Happily, in all this maze of extravagant speculation and improbable 
conjecture, we are not without some trustworthy lines of direct evidence, 
linguistic as well as archezologic, which throw light upon this important ques- 
tion: [hese are: 


1. The provenance of the Tuxtla Statuette, upon which is inscribed the 
earliest date in the Maya hieroglyphic writing. 

2. The provenance of the Huasteca, the only Maya-speaking tribe or group 
which is not contiguous to the main body of the Maya linguistic family, being 
entirely surrounded by other linguistic stocks, chiefly Nahuatlan and Totonacan, 
and the only Maya group, moreover, which lives in a region showing no traces of 
typical Maya archeological remains. 

3. The provenance of the earliest dates in the region covered by the remains 
of the Maya civilization. 





1 Le Plongeon (1886, p. 113) says in this connection: “In my work The Monuments of Mayax I have shown 
how legends accompanying the images of several of the Egyptian deities, when interpreted by means of the Maya 
language, point directly to Mayax as the birthplace of the Egyptian civilization.” 


THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA CIVILIZATION. 403 


Let us examine these several lines of evidence in the above order. The 
Tuxtla Statuette was found near San Andres Tuxtla, in the State of Vera 
Cruz, Mexico, about 1902, and was acquired for the United States National 
Museum by Holmes in 1903. (See fig. 63.) It is 
of nephrite, 16.5 cm. high, 9.5 cm. in diameter at 
the broadest place, and represents a bird-like figure 
with a human head. On the front, as already noted 
several times, is inscribed the date 8.6.2.4.17, which 
is some 160 years earlier than the next earliest date, 
1.é.,on the Leyden Plate, and is the earliest date yet 
discovered in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum. 
Bowditch has challenged the accuracy of this read- 
ing, and indeed that these glyphs record an Initial 
Series at all;! but on insufficient grounds the writer 
believes,” and the general opinion now is, that this 
specimen is not only genuine, but that its date also 
probably corresponds with the time of its execution. 

This date, as the writer has shown elsewhere,’ 
is recorded in bar-and-dot numerals without the 
accompanying period-glyphs, the value of the latter being determined by 
their positions from bottom to top in the number itself, like the Initial 
Series in the Dresden Codex.‘ 

The provenance of this specimen, because of its very early date, is thus 
of unusual importance as possibly indicating where the Maya first began 
to record their chronology, and particularly so in view of the fact that it was 
recovered from a region where distinctive Maya remains have not been 
found. Indeed, San Andres Tuxtla is in Nahua® country about 225 kilo- 
meters north of west from Comalcalco, the westernmost Maya site now 
known.® In other words, it lies some distance outside of the territory now 
definitely associated with Maya remains, such as the typical Maya archi- 
tecture and sculpture, for example. 

Turning next to the second line of evidence mentioned above, the 
Huasteca, a Maya-speaking people living on the Gulf Coast-plain of Mexico 
between Tuxpam and the Panuco River, in the States of Vera Cruz, Hidalgo, 
San Luis Potosi, and Tamaulipas, a unique condition is found. (See fig. 
64.) Here we have a Maya linguistic island surrounded by a sea of Totonaca, 
Nahua, Otomi, and Tamaulipeca, that is to say, a branch of the Maya 
linguistic stock entirely separated by intervening stocks from the main 
body of the family, the nearest branch of which to the Huasteca 1s the 
Chontal, 750 kilometers to the southeast.’ Nor is this linguistic isolation the 
only extraordinary feature about the Huasteca. Although speaking a Maya 
dialect, their prehistoric culture, judging from its remains, shows no resem- 





of Tuxtla Statuette. 











1 Holmes, 1907, pp. 695, 696. 3 Morley, 1915, pp. 194-196. 5 Thomas, I91I, map. 
2 [bid., pp. 696-700. 4 [bid., pp. 266-273. _ ®Charnay, 1887, pp. 194-210. 
7It is possible that the Totonaca were also originally a Maya branch. See Thomas, rgrt, p. 49. 





is} 


404 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


blance whatsoever to that of the Maya, either of the Old or New Empire, 
or even to those more culturally distant Maya, such as the Quiché, Cak- 
chiquel, Tzutuhil, Tzotzil, Tzendal, Chontal, and Mame, to mention only 
the more important tribes, inhabiting the highlands of southeastern Mexico 
and southern and western Guatemala, for the distribution and linguistic 
affiliations of which see Appendix XII and figure 91. 








96° a Bins _94° peal Sah8 _92° i __90° | . 88° 
CS uv 
LF 
O F 
| | 
50 oO 50 100 150 moO 250 300 aye 














AMPECH 





TUXTLA 
ATUETT 


6.2.4.17 























98° "96° 


Fic. 64.—Map showing provenance of earliest Maya inscriptions and probable line of migration of the Maya 
into their historical habitat. 


The Huasteca have no hieroglyphic writing, no highly developed cal- 
endar system based upon a 260-day Sacred Year and a 365-day solar year, 
and no chronology recorded in terms of a vigesimal system of numeration, 
the first two elements of which (the 260 and 365-day years), spread from 
the Maya to the several Zapotec, Miztec, Nahua and Totonac tribes of 
southern Mexico and Central America about the close of the Old Empire 
(10.2.0.0.0).'_ Their material culture, architecture, sculpture, and ceramic art, 
etc., show no resemblances to the corresponding phases of the Maya civiliza- 
tion, and, indeed, so dissimilar are the two cultures in all things, save only 





‘ Brinton says in this connection (1893, p. 260): “There is no direct evidence that it [the hieroglyphic-writing 
and calendar] had extended to the Huastecas, of Maya lineage on the Rio Panuco, but it was in vogue among the 
Totonacos, their neighbors to the south on the Gulf of Mexico.” 


THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA CIVILIZATION. 405 


that of a common language, that it is necessary to postulate a separation of 
the Huasteca from the other members of the Maya stock before the latter 
had developed the highly distinctive civilization by which they were charac- 
terized in later times.’ Linguistically considered, it is necessary to regard 
both as having had a common origin, however remote; but culturally con- 
sidered, the two must just as surely have separated before the Maya devel- 
oped their civilization. 

But how was this separation effected? Were the Huasteca left behind 
in a general southward movement of the Maya race, or do they represent 
a branch which pushed northward and away from the parent stock? This 
question can not be definitely answered until the Gulf Coast-plain of Mexico 
from the Grijalva to the Panuco River has been carefully examined, and 
excavations made at the principal archeological sites, but already it seems 
probable that the former explanation is the more likely to be correct. 

It will be seen in figure 64 that the provenance of the Tuxtla Statuette 
is about midway between the territory occupied by the Huasteca and the 
northern Peten region, where the earliest inscriptions within the Maya area 
have been found; that is, the earliest of all Maya texts comes from a region 
where typical Maya remains have not been found, which, however, stands 
about midway between the historic region occupied by the Maya farther 
south, and a region now occupied by Maya-speaking people, whose remains 
show no Maya cultural characteristics. 

Sapper attempts to solve this problem on the basis of certain linguistic 
evidence, laying particular stress on the two following factors: (1) that the 
name for pine-tree among the different Maya-speaking peoples shows a 
remarkable agreement, and (2) his discovery of a small Maya tribe in the 
highlands of southeastern Chiapas, the Chicomucelteca, which he claims is 
more closely related to the Huasteca linguistically than any other tribe of 
the Maya stock. From the first he argues that the original home of the 
Maya was in a pine-tree country, 7. ¢.,a mountainous land; and because of 
the second he suggests the highlands of Chiapas and Guatemala as the most 
likely place for this to have been: 


“Then it seems as most probable that the mountainous country of Chiapas- 
Guatemala is the original seat of the Maya family of peoples, from whence at an 
early date the Maya and Chol tribes must have migrated to the lowland, while 
still earlier the Huasteca emigrated from Chiapas along the Atlantic coast-plain 
to the north and settled at their present seats.’” 


This, of course, may be true, but it is easier to conceive the Chicomu- 
celteca, whom Sapper estimated doubtfully at not more than 4,000 in 1897, 
as moving southward to their present habitat in southeastern Chiapas at 
some early time, than it is to conceive the Huasteca, at present numbering 
at least 42,000, as moving northward from the highlands of Chiapas to their 





1 See Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 11, pp. 168-183; Prieto, 1873; Joyce, 1914, and Staub, 1919, for descriptions of the 
Huasteca and their material culture. 
2 See Sapper, 1897, p. 398. 


406 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


present habitat at an equally early date. And in conclusion, the writer 
believes the most probable place of origin for the Maya civilization is some- 
where on the Gulf Coast-plain of Mexico between 18° and 22° north latitude. 
Indeed, in a later publication (1905) Sapper himself would seem to have 
reached a similar conclusion: 

“On the other hand it is very difficult to distinguish the causes of the great 
distance separating the Huasteca from the Mayas with whom they belong ethno- 
logically. And this difficulty has increased since I succeeded in finding in the vil- 
lage of Chicomucelo in Chiapas, near the Guatemalan frontier, a language which 
is very like the Huastec and is in striking contrast to the other members of the Maya 
stock of languages. Before we knew of the Chicomucelteca, we could assume that 
in the original immigration of the Maya nations from the north, a part remained 
behind in the Huasteca, and there the language developed in a peculiar way, because 
the connection with its kindred was interrupted. But how came the Chicomu- 
celteca in their present home, forming a linguistic island in the midst of Maya 
peoples? Can it be that they are only a Huasteca colony, which has recently 
settled there.’” 


Joyce believes the Maya civilization originated where it reached its 
zenith during the Old Empire, namely, in northern Guatemala: 


“The isolation of this definitely Maya branch |1.¢., the Huasteca] would seem 
to imply that the Maya in the earliest days of all must have spread from Guatemala, 
up the east coast of Mexico as far as Tampico, penetrating into Chiapas, and 
possibly into Oaxaca, and colonizing the Mexican valley, where they found a 
primitive people akin to the earliest population of Michoacan. In times subsequent 
to what I may call this proto-Maya movement, there took place in the southern 
fertile region a great cultural development, culminating 1 in the organization Ora 
calendar, the invention of a script, and construction of the ruined ‘cities.’’”” 


This is a far-reaching extension of the Maya indeed, and one which the 
archeological evidence will hardly justify, certainly not as to their coloniza- 
tion of the Valley of Mexico, and probably not as to that of Oaxaca either. 

Joyce’s hypothesis of the autochthonous origin of the Maya civilization, 
he admits, is open to the serious a priort objection that no beginnings of the 
culture have been found in this region, “that civilization springs,”’ as it were, 
‘full-blown from the earth.” He overcomes this difficulty by ascribing the 
failure to find these earlier traces to the lack of systematic excavation in 
this region (negative evidence at best) and to the fact (generally admitted) 
that the art of carving was first developed on some perishable material such 
as wood, and that therefore the earlier remains have not survived. Finally, 
he dismisses the evidence afforded by the Tuxtla Statuette with the brief 
comment that it is “artificial or mythical.’ 

The writer finds himself unable to agree with any of these several con- 
clusions. In the first place, for reasons already stated, he believes the date 
inscribed on the Tuxtla Statuette was contemporaneous with the date of its 
execution; in the second place, that the Huasteca are much more likely to 
represent a backward branch of the Maya, who have always remained in or 





1 See Sapper, 1905, p. 5. 2 See Joyce, 1914, p. 368. *Tbid., p. 254 note 1. 


THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA CIVILIZATION. 407 


near their original habitat, than that they were a more progressive element 
who pushed out first and more distantly than any other Maya branch; and 
finally, he believes sufficient evidence has been presented to show that it is 
extremely improbable the Maya developed their civilization in the region 
where it reached its zenith during the Old Empire, 7.e. , generally speaking, 
the Peten region of northern Guatemala. 

The hypothesis suggested below, on the other hand, should by no 
means be accepted as proved. As yet the evidence upon which it or any 
other is based, which seeks to explain the origin of the Maya civilization, is 
too insufficient to permit final conclusions, but the writer ventures to believe 
that it better meets the conditions imposed by the archzologic and linguistic 
evidence than any other. 

At some remote epoch, sufficiently prior to 8.6.2.4.17 for them to have 
developed such a complex calendar, chronology, and hieroglyphic writing 
as they possessed even at that early date (about 100 B. c., see Appendix 
II), the Maya may have lived somewhere north of their habitat during the 
Old Empire (see fig. 64); and since a Maya-speaking people still inhabit 
such a region between Tuxpam and the Panuco River, this may possibly 
have been the place. 

Before developing their calendar, chronology, hieroglyphic writing, 
and distinctive civilization, by which they were characterized in later times, 
the great mass of the stock moved south, leaving behind, perhaps, the more 
backward elements, who later developed a far lower and different culture, 
but who continued to speak the mother Maya tongue, and who later became 
the Huasteca of historic times. 

Somewhere between the above region and San Andres Tuxtla, if our 
hypothesis be correct, the Maya civilization had its origin, and their calendar 
and chronology had been perfected to such a point that by 8.6.2.4.17 they 
were able to carve upon a very hard stone (the Tuxtla Statuette has a hard- 
ness of about 7) the earliest date yet found in their hieroglyphic writing. 

How long prior to this date it took them to make and record the 
necessary astronomical observations on the sun and moon, upon which their 
calendar is based, and having at last sufficient data at hand, how long it took 
them to perfect their remarkable chronological system, is of course impossible 
to say. The first process, however, would appear a prior: to have been much 
the longer of the two. Since, once certain astronomical facts, such as the 
apparent revolutions of the sun and moon around the earth, had been deter- 
mined, the invention of the whole elaborate calendar and chronology, 
including the arithmetical and notational systems, might have been the 
work of a single individual. Such highly complex and arbitrary inventions, 
while based upon data slowly and laboriously acquired over long periods of 
time, ar 
liquidation of long-accumulated acigitaaavel investments; aH sO the actual 
construction of the Maya calendar and chronology may have come swiftly, 





408 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


once the astronomical data upon which they were based had been accumu- 
lated in sufficient quantities to establish therefrom certain dependable 
astronomical laws. And possibly this invention may have taken place not 
long prior to 8.6.2.4.17, the date on the Tuxtla Statuette, since no certain 
earlier contemporaneous date has yet been found in the Maya writing." 

The hypothesis outlined above rests on the three following postulates: 


1. That the date on the Tuxtla Statuette is 8.6.2.4.17, 

2. That this date is the contemporaneous date of the specimen, 

3. That the specimen was made in the general region where it was discovered, 
i. €., that it was not brought from somewhere else by trade. 


Concerning the first, the writer has no doubt as to its accuracy. The 
Initial Series number 8.6.2.4.17 leads to the terminal date 8 Caban o Kankin, 
and the day-sign coefficient 8 appears regularly in its proper place below 
this number, attached to a glyph the main element of which has unfor- 
tunately been effaced. (See fig. 63.) This is too close an agreement to 
be the result of coincidence only, and practically establishes, first, that 
the number is an Initial Series, and second, that it reads 8.6.2.4.17, even 
though the corresponding month-part of the Initial Series terminal date 
does not appear in the rest of the text, at least in a recognizable form. Possi- 
bly the month-part may have been suppressed altogether, as was not infre- 
quently the case; for the discussion of which point see pages 138, 139, 157. 

Concerning the second postulate above, since 8.6.2.4.17 is the only date 
on the specimen, the logical assumption is that this date was present time 
when it was inscribed, namely, that it is the contemporaneous date of the 
inscription. 

The third postulate above is less certain than the other two, although 
the writer believes it is probably correct. The Tuxtla Statuette is small, 
however, 16.5 cm. high and 9.5 cm. maximum diameter, and could easily 
have been carried long distances in trade, straying far from its original place 
of execution. Still, it was found near San Andres Tuxtla, and perhaps the 
burden of proof rests on those who would argue that its original provenance 
was elsewhere. 

Weighing all the evidence, therefore, and giving due weight to the fact 
that we have a Maya-speaking people 400 to 500 kilometers still farther to 
the northwest (see fig. 64), it seems not improbable that the Maya were in 
the San Andres Tuxtla region in 8.6.2.4.17, when the Tuxtla Statuette was 
made, and that they may have come hither from some region farther north 
and possibly from as far north as the present habitat of the Huasteca. 





1 Seler (1902-1908, vol. 11, p. 30) assumes that the Maya graphic system, chronology, and calendar must have been 
developed at least two centuries before its first record on stone: ‘““This would place..... the nephrite plate 
from the Rio Gracioza (?) [the Leyden Plate] approximately in the year goo [A. p.] and according to my previous 
assumption fix upon the year 700 as the latest limit, which we should have to assume for the discovery of the 
elements of the writing, the invention of the calendar, and the age of the kingdom of Tollan.” It should be noted 
that at the time Seler wrote the above passage (1902) the Leyden Plate was the earliest dated object known. Aside 
from the inaccuracy of his equivalent dates in Christian chronology (see Appendix II, pp. 528, 534), this minimum 
limit of 200 years appears too great to the writer, since the date on the Tuxtla Statuette could conceivably, 
although improbably, have been recorded during the lifetime of the inventor of the graphic system and calendar. 


THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA CIVILIZATION. 409 


One other point tends strongly to confirm the accuracy of this conclu- 
sion, namely, the existence of another tribe, the Totonaca, who occupy the 
coast-plain just north of Vera Cruz, 7. ¢., between the Huasteca and San 
Andres Tuxtla, and who are linguistically and culturally said to be related to 
the Maya. Speaking of their linguistic affiliations, Swanton says: 


“The present tendency of linguistic opinion is to place the Totonac language 
in the Mayan family, thus bringing it into relation with the Huasteca. The long 
friendly relations between the two tribes corresponds with this opinion. Orozco 
y Berra! expressed his belief in the relationship of the two dialects.’ 


The material culture of the Totonaca, moreover, shows strong resem- 
blances to that of the Maya; although this is probably due to actual con- 
tact with the Maya during or after the Great Period rather than to an 
earlier common origin of the two cultures. The so-called laughing heads 
of the Totonacan region, modeled in clay, are clearly Mayan in feeling, 
and in ceramic motives direct connections may be traced.* Says Spinden in 
speaking of Totonacan art: 


“This apparent connection in language is all the more interesting in view of 
the character of Totonacan art, which also shows a strong strain of Mayan feeling 
and technique in certain products but an unmistakable likeness to the archaic 
art of the Mexican highlands in certain other products. ‘The pottery faces in the 
archaic style are advanced beyond the average of such work and probably represent 
alate phase. It is possible to bring forward examples of every degree of transition 
from the archaic style to the classical Mayan of Tabasco and Chiapas. Curiously 
enough it does not seem possible to extend these linking likenesses to the Huastecas.’” 


Finally, in a passage from Brinton, already quoted on page 404, note 1, he 
states that the Totonaca used a hieroglyphic writing and a calendar system. 
Taken together, these several factors point to the former racial unity of the 
Maya and the Totonaca, and in the present connection tend to indicate 
that the region where the Maya civilization originated lay somewhere to 
the northwest of San Andres Tuxtla and possibly even as far south as the 
present habitat of the Totonaca. 

To trace the probable history of the Maya before the separation of the 
Huasteca from the main body of the stock becomes largely a matter of specu- 
lation. Spinden has shown that, coincident with the invention and primary 
dissemination of agriculture, possibly somewhere in and from the highlands 
of central Mexico, there seems to have spread over the greater part of Middle 
America and the northwestern corner of South America, largely restricted to 
arid tropical regions and avoiding the low Atlantic Coast-plain with its heavy 
rainfall and rich alluvial soil, an early homogeneous culture characterized 
by a simple and undeveloped religion, an unsymbolic art, pottery-making, 
and loom-weaving, which he calls the Archaic Horizon.° 

1 See Orozco y Berra, 1864, p. 214. 2 Thomas, I9II, p. 49. 


3 See Strebel, 1884; ibid, 1885-1889; ibid, 1904; and Spinden, 1917, pp. 145-150. 4 Spinden, 1917, pp. 145, 146. 
5 Spinden, 1915, pp. 451-459, 467-469, 1bid., 1917, pp. 43-04; tbid., 19174, pp. 181-188; ibid., 1917), pp. 269-276. 


410 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


He further believes this culture was the common product of tribes then 
living in the highlands of central Mexico, but that the Nahua led in 
its development and dissemination, and that it was carried by them 
southward down the Pacific Coast-plain of Central America to Guatemala, 
Salvador, Nicaragua,! and as far south as the Isthmus of Panama.’ 

It appears as not unlikely that before this period the Maya may have 
found their way to the Gulf Coast-plain, possibly to the general region 
now occupied by the Huasteca or Totonaca. If so, they must have been 
largely a hunting and fishing people, depending only partly upon the many 
wild fruits and plants of the tropical forest to supplement their food-supply, 
moving to and fro in their quest for food, and not held to fixed abodes by the 
exigencies of an agricultural life, their time filled with and their energies 
absorbed by the struggle for bare existence. 

To such a people, living in such an environment richly endowed by 
nature with a fertile soil and a warm, moist climate, the factors most essen- 
tial for the growth of crops, and wanting only cultivation in order to yield 
a maximum return for a minimum effort, there may have come, from the 
highlands to their west, knowledge of the practice of agriculture, probably 
first as applied to the cultivation of corn. 

Soon, because of the several factors just mentioned, the returns in pro- 
portion to the effort expended became very much greater than on the arid 
highlands; nature herself lent a more helping hand; the harvests became 
more and more abundant, until from scarcely sufficing for the general needs 
of the tribe from one harvest to the next, reserve supplies of food began to 
be-accumulated, thus releasing from purely economic production energies 
which could be directed toward other ends, religious and esthetic. 

The introduction of agriculture brought about a tremendous change in 
the lives of the groups which it touched. Instead of moving hither and 
thither, driven by the necessities of a game, fish, and only casually vege- 
tarian dietary, living in temporary houses under a very loose social and 
governmental organization, agriculture for the first time made possible, 
indeed compelled, the establishment of permanent homes and developed the 
need for property rights. Larger social units than the family became pos- 
sible, such as the village, clan, and tribe; and with less and less time 
being absorbed in the food-quest, more and more time was devoted to the 
development of the household arts; pottery-making and loom-weaving were 
invented; religion became more complex, and esthetic instincts wider and 
more elaborate in their expression. 

Under some such conditions as these the Maya emerged from a nomadic, 
hunting, and fishing life to a sedentary agricultural one, and because their 
habitat was so richly endowed by nature to begin with, and far more fertile 
than that of the arid-highland peoples, the resulting civilization which they 
were able to develop gradually surpassed all surrounding cultures, and event- 





1 Spinden, 1917, p. 43. 2 Thid., 1917), p. 269. 


THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA CIVILIZATION. AIl 


ually under the Old Empire became the finest expression of the aboriginal 
American mind. 

In some such a way, then, the Maya civilization had its origin, presum- 
ably somewhere on the Gulf Coast-plain of Mexico, probably between the 
Grijalva and Panuco Rivers, 18° to 22° north latitude, and the writer 
believes, although this point is yet incapable of direct proof, some time toward 
the end of the second or the beginning of the first millenium before the birth 
of Christ. Finally, although the earliest dated text, the Tuxtla Statuette 
(circa 100 B. C.), is doubtless at least a thousand years later than this begin- 
ning, it is probable that future excavations in this region, archeologically so 
strategic in the solution of the Maya problem, will bring to light still earlier 
texts that will carry us back still nearer to the beginning of the Maya hiero- 
glyphic writing, which, so far as the calculations involved in the Initial Series 
proper are concerned, is as perfected and as finished on the Tuxtla Statuette 
as in the latest Initial Series known, some 1,100 years later.! 

Turning next to the consideration of the third line of 
evidence mentioned on page 402, namely, the provenance 
of the earliest dates in the Maya area proper, that is, exclud- 
ing the Tuxtla Statuette, which we have just seen was found 
without this region, we at last reach firm historical ground. 

The next earliest surely dated contemporaneous texts 
in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum are the following: 


1. The Leyden Plate, Py v ead: Bp ep ie 
2.. Uaxactun, Stela 9, 8.14.10.13.15 
3. Copan, Stela 24, Q,°2.10:10."0 
4. Likal, Stela 3, 8 ray TA w Mal 8) 
5. Tikal, Stela ro, OSs TIF 2. +O 
6. Uaxactun, Stela 3, oes eh ois) ta, 
7. Copan, Stela 15, GA, Vr O40 
8. Tikal, Stela 17, GS 6s. O11 
g. Copan, Stela 9, 9.6.40) 6.00 


In addition to these, there are 16 other monuments at 
Copan and Io others at Tikal which are earlier than the ear- 
liest monument now known at any third site, namely, Stela 
25 at Piedras Negras, recording the hotun-ending 9.8.15.0.0. 

Analyzing, first, the provenance of these earliest dated 
texts, we find that the earliest one of all is on a small neph- D2) 
rite celt, the Leyden Plate (see fig. 65), found just west of |Z): foe 
the mouth of the Motagua River near the Rio Graciosa. It aq fs 
is only 21.6 cm. long, 7 to 8.5 cm. wide, and 0.2 to 0.5 cm. 
thick, in fact, so small an object (much smaller and lighter 
than the Tuxtla Statuette) that it could easily have been 
carried long distances with little or no inconvenience. When Fic. 65.— Inscription 
this is taken into consideration with the fact that jade (neph- 0°” Leyden Plate. 











1The latest Initial Series known is that on the back wall of the Temple of the Initial Series at Holactun (Xcalum- 
kin), Yucatan. As shown by the writer elsewhere (1918a, p. 274), this probably records the date 11.2.8.4.9, although 
10.9.8.4.9 is not an impossible reading. 


A412 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


rite or jadeite) was the most precious of all materials to the ancient Maya, it 
will be seen that the precise locality where such a small object was found is of 
little value in determining its place of origin. It was so small of bulk, so 
light of weight, so precious of material, and so cherished because of its 
hoary antiquity even as early as the Middle Period of the Old Empire, that 
it would have been, and possibly was, carried far from its place of manu- 
facture. 

This same objection, however, can not be raised against the next inscrip- 
tion, that on Stela 9 at Uaxactun (see fig. 66), which is less than 8 years later 
than the Leyden Plate, and is the oldest monument, 
i. ¢., large, monolithic remain, yet found in the 


Maya area, or indeed recorded in the Maya hiero- 
lyphic writing. This site was discovered by the YW) 
glyp g h, Yy Yj yj 


Wt 


Carnegie Institution Central American Expedition . 
of 1916, in the Department of Peten, Guatemala, 
north of Lake Peten Itza, some 25 to 30 kilometers 
northwest of Tikal and 600 kilometers south of east 
from San Andres Tuxtla (see plate 1 and fig. 64).! 

This monument is a large shaft of limestone, LD) GF J 

° Yytt}-4 Lise 
2.9 meters high (above the ground), 1.22 meters WZ We 
wide at the base, 76 cm. wide at the top, and 60 56 OH Lee Bert : 
cm. thick, and weighs several tons, much too heavy at Uaxactun. 
an object, in fact, ever to have been moved far from its place of manu- 
facture. It is still standing, although leaning far out of the perpendicular, 
with its front forward, in which position the back or surface having the 
single glyph-panel has suffered more from weathering than the front. Even 
if there were not other very early monuments at Uaxactun in addition to 
Stela 9,2 we are justified, on the evidence afforded by this monument alone, 
in assuming that we have here a stela im situ, recording a contemporaneous 
Cycle 8 date; in other words, that on the basis of the dated remains in situ 
Uaxactun is the oldest Maya site yet discovered. 

Omitting Stela 20 at Copan, although the writer believes its date is 
9.1.10.0.0 as suggested, the next earliest monument is Stela 24 at Copan, 
which is 160 years later than Stela 9g at Uaxactun; and then during the next 
80 years follow Stelz 3 and 10 at Tikal, Stela 3 at Uaxactun, Stela 15 at 
Copan, Stela 17 at Tikal, and Stela 9 at Copan. 

Analyzing next the dates of these nine monuments, it will be found 
that Stela 9 at Uaxactun is 166 years later than the Tuxtla Statuette; in 
other words, that during the interval between 8.6.2.4.17, the date of the 
latter, and 8.14.10.13.15, the date of the former, the Maya had continued 
their migration southeastward and had occupied the northern part of the 


. Wy 
NY, 





SEO 06 


OO 


1See Morley, 1916a, pp. 339-341. This site was named Uaxactun because of the discovery of the Cycle 8 
Initial Series on Stela 9 here, waxac being Maya for 8, and tun Maya for stone, 1. ¢., ‘8 stone.” 

2 Other early monuments at Uaxactun are: Stela 5, 8.15.10.3.12(?); Stela 3, 9.3.13.0.0; and Stela 6, 9.6, 7, 
or 8.2.2.3. 


THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA CIVILIZATION. 413 


region (see plate 1 and fig. 64), where three centuries later they were to 
attain such cultural brilliance. 

Uaxactun is approximately 600 kilometers south of east from San 
Andres Tuxtla, which latter place, as we have already seen, is about half- 
way between the historic habitat of the Huasteca and the northern Peten 
region, the earliest known historic habitat of the Maya. 

Still another 160 years, seven generations later, and we find that some 
branch of the Maya had found its way 300 kilometers farther south; had 
reached the Copan Valley, and had established itself there with sufficient 
confidence and permanency to be able to execute and erect Stela 24 in 
g.2.10.0.0, or possibly Stela 20, a katun earlier. 

On the basis of the provenance and dates of the earliest surely deci- 
phered contemporaneous inscriptions, therefore, it appears probable that 
Copan is not so old as Uaxactun by some 160 years; and even if we admit 
that the date of Stela 20, the earliest monument at Copan on stylistic 
grounds, is correctly deciphered as 9.1.10.0.0, this only cuts down the 
priority of Uaxactun by 20 years. But this important question as to which 
is the older city and which region the first occupied does not rest on the 
evidence supplied by these two monuments alone. Whereas Stela 20 is the 
only monument earlier than Stela 24 at Copan that we can possibly admit 
even on stylistic grounds, there are several other early monuments at 
Uaxactun and Tikal, besides those given on page 411. Thus, for example, 
Stela 5 at Uaxactun may have another Cycle 8 Initial Series, 8.15.10.3.12, 
within 20 years of that on Stela 9; and again, although the earliest surely 
deciphered date at Copan (Stela 24) is 3 years older (or if we accept the 
reading suggested by the writer for Stela 20, 23 years o/der) than the earliest 
surely deciphered date at Tikal (Stela 3), there is this important difference 
between these two great cities: At Copan we have nothing earlier than 
Stela 20, even on stylistic grounds, whereas at Tikal there are at least 7 
other stele the dates of which have not yet been deciphered, but which are 
fully as early as Stela 3 on stylistic grounds, and 4 of which are almost cer- 
tainly even earlier. 

Maler! describes 17 sculptured stele at Tikal, and Tozzer? enumerates 
51 plain ones. Of the former only 4, Nos. 5, 11, 16, and 6 (?), belong to the 
Great Period, all the rest dating not only from the Early Period, but also 
from its earlier half.2 Of the remaining 13 sculptured stele, 2, Nos. 14 and 
15, are so badly injured that Maler took no photographs of them, and of 


1Maler, 1911, pp. 62-91. 2 Tozzer, I9II, p. 102. 

3 Thus, for example, there are no dates at Tikal after 9.6.3.9.15 (Stela 17) until 9.14.0.0.0 (Stela 16), an interval 
of 150 years. It is highly probable, however, that the 51 plain stele here were erected during this period, 
their inscriptions and designs being painted upon them instead of engraved. If we suppose them to have been the 
hotun-markers (and of the 17 sculptured stelz only 2, Nos. 11 and 16, record hotun-endings, 10.2.0.0.0 and 9.14.0.0.0 
respectively), and if we suppose further that only the lahuntuns and katuns were marked up to 9.10.0.0.0, there 
would have been required between 9.3.0.0.0 (the next katun after Stela 3) and 10.2.0.0.0, the date of Stela 11, 63 
stele, and deducting 2, for Stelae 11 and 16, because they record two katun-endings within this period," we will 
have left 61 stela, or only 10 more than the number of plain stelz already discovered. It seems not unlikely, 
therefore, that the hotuns at Tikal may have been marked by painted, plain stelz instead of carved ones. 


414 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


the remaining 11, on stylistic grounds 4 are surely earlier than Stela 3,! 
3 as early,? and only 3 are later.* That is to say that whereas at Copan we 
have only 1 stela (Stela 20) which may be earlier than 9.2.10.0.0 (Stela 24), 
at Tikal we have at least 4 (Stele 4, 7, 8, and 13), and possibly 3 more 
(Stele 1, 2, and 9), which are earlier than 9.2.13.0.0 (Stela 3). 

This evidence at Tikal, coupled with that at Uaxactun, where we have 
one monument (Stela g) if not two (Stela 5) recording dates actually 140 
years earlier than the earliest possible contemporaneous date now known 
at Copan, proves on the chronologic side almost conclusively that Uaxactun- 
Tikal is considerably older than Copan. This is established not only by the 
actual priority of the Uaxactun dates, but also by the mass of the evidence, 
more earlier monuments being known at Tikal, although not exactly dated, 
than at Copan. 

Finally, the geographic location of these two great Maya centers is such 
as to make it extremely probable that Tikal is the older. Not only is Tikal 
nearer the center of the Old Empire, and Copan far out on the southeastern 
frontier (see plate 1), but also the general trend of early Maya migration 
was from northwest to southeast, the earliest dated Maya object known 
being found 300 kilometers nearer Tikal than Copan. 

Summing up these several lines of evidence as to the origin of the Maya 
civilization, it appears as not improbable that the introduction of agricul- 
ture from the highlands of central Mexico to the Gulf Coast-plain may have 
been the primary factor in releasing the Maya from complete absorption in 
the continuous struggle for bare existence. 

Cultivation applied to this naturally rich region yielded a far more 
abundant return than in the arid highlands, and the exigencies of the agri- 
cultural year, the clearing, planting, and harvesting seasons, must soon have 
turned the minds of the Maya priesthood toward the accurate measure of 
time and the study of the seasonal year and of the sun and moon. 

After many generations of recorded observations on these bodies, cer- 
tain natural laws became deducible therefrom, and then some Mayan 
Hipparchus invented the calendar, possibly first a 260-day Sacred Year (the 
tonalamatl) built up on the permutation of 13 numbers and 20 names, per- 
haps next a 365-day solar year (the haab), composed of 18 periods of 20 
days each and a closing period of 5 days, and still later a combination of the 
two, in which the 260 differently named days were fitted into the 365 posi- 
tions of the year, giving a new period (the Calendar Round) composed of 
18,980 dates, 52 years of 365 days each or 73 years of 260 days each. Still 
later some one devised the remarkable Maya vigesimal numerical system, 
numeration by position, 7. ¢., from bottom to top, and the ingenious Maya 
arithmetical notation of bars and dots, and probably later the head-variant 
numerals, and thus the calendar and chronology gradually took shape. 

Some time prior to these discoveries, however, the Maya would seem 
to have begun a general movement southeastward, in which the possibly 





1 Stele 4, 7, 8, and 13. 2 Stelz 1, 2, and 9. 3Stela 10, 12, and 17 


THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA CIVILIZATION. 415 


more backward elements, later to become the Huasteca, were left behind 
in the region between the Panuco River and Tuxpam in the State of Vera 
Cruz. Moving southeastward, slowly we may feel sure, the Maya would 
appear to have been established in the region around San Andres Tuxtla in 
8.6.2.4.17, by which time their chronology, hieroglyphic writing, notational 
system, and proficiency in stone-carving were sufficiently perfected to 
enable them to carve upon a hard, refractory material such as nephrite an 
inscription in their graphic system. 

Up to this point our history of the probable movements and activities 
of the Maya has been largely speculative, based principally upon the exist- 
ence of a Maya-speaking people of non-Mayan culture far to the northwest 
of the recognized Maya culture and linguistic areas, and upon the prove- 
nance and date of the Tuxtla Statuette, but from this time onward we enter 
upon firm historical ground. 

By 8.14.10.13.15, some 165 years later, we find the Maya established at 
Uaxactun in northern Peten, 600 kilometers still farther south and east, and 
by 9.2.10.0.0 and probably by 9.1.10.0.0, 160 or 140 years later respectively, 
we find them in the Copan Valley and sufficiently at home there to be quarry- 
ing, carving, and erecting monuments and presumably in building a city. 

If the hypothesis advanced here is correct, namely, that Uaxactun and 
Tikal are much older than Copan, at least by a century, we need not look 
for the beginnings of the Maya hieroglyphic writing at Copan at all, or indeed 
for inscriptions much earlier than Stela 20, since under this hypothesis the 
Maya are assumed to have developed and perfected their chronological sys- 
tem and hieroglyphic writing, even to the point of recording it upon stone 
monuments, long before they reached Copan, and the beginnings of it must 
be sought elsewhere, possibly in northern Peten, but more probably some- 
where on the Gulf Coast-plain of Mexico between the Panuco and Grijalva 
Rivers. 


HISTORY OF COPAN DURING THE OLD EMPIRE. 


THE EARLY PERIOD. 


As deciphered in Chapters II, III, and IV, probably 95 per cent. of the 
Copan dates are correct as given; certainly those which are recorded as 
Initial Series, Secondary Series, and Period Endings have no greater propor- 
tion of error than 1 out of 20; and of the remaining Calendar Round dates 
at least 75 per cent. are probably correctly deciphered. Moreover, if the last 
also happen to be hotun-endings as well, such as the contemporaneous dates 
of Altars Z, G3, QO, W’, W, Go, and G,;, Temple 21a, and the Reviewing-stand 
in the Western Court for example, the percentage of accurately deciphered 
dates is even higher. Thus, in spite of effacement due to erosion and break- 
age, and even the loss of essential parts of the record on still missing fragments, 
it is probable that less than 5 per cent. of the readings suggested in the fore- 
going pages are incorrect. 


416 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


In utilizing these chronologic data for the reconstruction of the his- 
torical background at Copan, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that 
all dates recorded were not contemporaneous, even at the times the monu- 
ments presenting them were severally erected, and that in order to analyze 
their significance properly, it is necessary to discriminate sharply between 
the surely contemporaneous dates and those which were either historical, 1.¢., 
in the past, or prophetic, 1. ¢., in the future, at the times they were recorded. 
If this distinction is not made, the considerable preponderance of late dates 
due to the extensive use of Secondary Series and Calendar Round dating in 
texts of the Great Period will unduly emphasize the importance of that 
period, and mislead especially as to the number of texts emanating there- 
from, as compared with those from the Middle and Early Periods. 

It has been shown in the preceding section that the branch of the Maya 
which founded and built Copan probably reached there with a full knowledge 
and ample experience in the use of their peculiar chronologic and graphic 
systems; that is to say, they probably did not develop either in the region of 
Copan. Indeed, the evidence presented in the preceding section tends to 
establish that they had been engraving their records on large stone monu- 
ments (Stela 9 at Uaxactun) for at least 156 years before the earliest certain 
date at Copan (Stela 24), and on smaller stone objects (the Tuxtla Statuette) 
for at least 321 years before; in short, it would appear that the Maya 
reached the Copan Valley at a high level of cultural attainment and set 
about the intensive occupation of the region with little loss of time. And 
the next question is, when and where did this first occupation take place? 

It has been shown in Chapter II that, on stylistic grounds, Stela 20 is 
pretty surely the oldest monument at Copan, and the best reading of its 
fragmentary date, 9.1.10.0.0, agrees with this; first, because of this fact, 7. ¢., 
there being no earlier monuments known at the site, and second, because 
by this date the Maya had already been carving their inscriptions on stone 
for such a long time (more than three centuries), that the carving of stele 
could have offered no real difficulty to them even in a newly occupied 
region; the writer is disinclined to push back the date of their arrival in the 
Copan Valley much before 9.0.0.0.0. Indeed, if Stela 20 were the first 
hieroglyphic monument to be carved at Copan, and certainly no other of 
earlier style has yet been found there, it is even possible that they may have 
arrived shortly after 9.0.0.0.0. In round numbers, we may probably say 
that the Maya reached this region not much before the close of Cycle 8, and 
that by the beginning of Cycle 9 its occupation was under way, and finally 
that as early as 9.1.10.0.0, less than 30 years later, the capital, or principal 
settlement in the valley, had been located at Group 9, which answers the 
question propounded above as to when and where this occupation first 
took place. 

It may be objected that this reading for the date of Stela 20 is doubtful; 
but even if this were true, the date of Stela 24, which is surely deciphered, 
is only 20 years later. 


— ae 


PLATE 33 


MORLEY 


DIUAOJITVD ‘0SIITT UY ‘uolysogdxY viusof1yjv) vupUuDg ay] fo ésaqzanoy 


BIIaI A SOpIeD) Aq sunured 9y} I91yV 


‘ysvo SUTYOO] ‘seInpuo fy ‘uevdod jo sulnyy ou 








HISTORY OF COPAN DURING THE OLD EMPIRE. 417 


Or again, it may be held that earlier monuments will yet be found at 
Copan which will carry back the occupation of the site much earlier. While 
this is of course possible, it is nevertheless significant that such earlier monu- 
ments have not come to light as yet, in spite of the fact that Group 9, appar- 
ently the oldest settlement in the valley on the basis of the dated remains, 
has been more thoroughly excavated than any other place in the valley, the 
Main Structure not excepted, owing to the fact that the modern village was 
built on its site. On the contrary, such monuments as have been found 
under conditions indicating secondary usage are all not only of later style 
than Stela 20, but also of later date. 

Or finally, it may be contended that the earlier monuments at Copan 
were made of wood and have consequently disappeared; but against this 
objection may be adduced the fact that there is at least one stone stela 
known, at Uaxactun, which is surely 137 years older than the date suggested 
for Stela 20, and there are a half a dozen others at Tikal probably from 20 
to 50 years older than Stela 20. Ina word, stone stele had been known for 
five or six generations at least before the date suggested here for Stela 20. 

In view of all the foregoing evidence, (1) the lack of a single text at 
Copan, which, even on stylistic grounds, can possibly be older than Stela 
20 in spite of all the archeological work, especially excavation, that has been 
done there during the past 35 years, (2) the presence of inscribed stone 
stele elsewhere of every much earlier date, and (3) the dates of Stele 20 and 
24 themselves, the writer believes it probable that the Maya reached the 
Copan Valley with a full knowledge and understanding of their chronology 
and hieroglyphic writing and with an ample previous experience in the art 
of stone-carving, about the beginning of Cycle 9, and probably settled first 
at Group 9, Stela 20 possibly being the first monument erected there. 

That Group 9 was the first settlement in the valley rests on strong 
archeological evidence, as we have already seen in Chapter IT: 


1. The two earliest surely dated monuments, Stela 24 and 15, are both found 
here, as well as the one which we have seen is probably the earliest of all, Stela 20. 

2. More early monuments are found here than at all the other groups in the 
valley combined, including the Main Structure. Of the 22 monuments of the 
Early Period under observation, not including Fragments V’ and Fragment S’, 
12, or more than half, were found at this group. 

3. Of the 10 monuments outside of this group, practically every one occurs in 
positions indicating secondary usage, i. ¢., in positions for which they were not 
originally designed. 

4. Of the 15 Early Period fragments now known at Copan, all but one, Frag- 
ment S’, were found here. 


Nor could the ancient Maya have chosen a better site in the whole 
valley for their first settlement. At this point a bench of the foot-hills 
extends out into the valley from the north side. Nearby, along its eastern 
base, flows the Rio Sesesmil, offering at all times an abundant supply of 
potable water fresh from the mountains; and below, to the east, south, and 


418 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


west, for a kilometer or more, stretches the valley-bottom, a rich alluvial 
plain, subjected to annual overflow in its lowest parts bordering on the Co- 
pan River, and capable, under cultivation, of supporting a large population. 

In later times, so well chosen was this spot and so admirably adapted 
for a small settlement, that the modern village was also located in the same 
place, the plaza of the one being roughly coincident with the plaza of the 
other, and unfortunately, the building material of the one furnishing the 
building material for the other. 

It appears probable that the religious center of this first settlement was 
the mound of Stela 7, since of the twelve early monuments found at Group 9, 
eight were recovered here, Altars P’ and Q’ and Stele 20, 24, 25, 15, 18, and 7 
(fig. 22, d’, b’, v, q, e’, s, x, and o respectively); and of the remaining four, two, 
Stele 21 and 22, show unmistakable signs of secondary usage in ancient 
times, the former having been built into the hearting of the high mound 
at the southeastern corner of the plaza (fig. 22, k) and the latter being found 
in one of the stone stairways around the small court at the southwestern 
corner of Group 9 (fig. 22, w’), and the remaining two, Altars L’ and M’, 
must have come from nearby. (See fig. 22, g and 1, respectively.) 

Possibly the first monument to be erected in the original settlement on 
the banks of the Rio Sesesmil was Stela 20 in 9.1.10.0.0 (fig. 22, 7), and 
from this time on for the next 160 years, Group 9 grew steadily, increasing 
in size until its religious and civic center occupied practically the whole of 
this little bench jutting out into the valley. 

It has been pointed out that practically all the monuments of the Early 
Period which have been found outside of Group 9 occur in positions strongly 
indicating secondary usage, as follows: 


Altars J’ and K’, in the foundations of Stela 10 (9.10.19.13.0) at Group 12. 

Altar X, in the foundations of Stela 5 (9.13.15.0.0 or 9.14.0.0.0) at Group 8. 

Altar Y, in the foundations of Stela 4 (9.17.12.13.0) at the Main Structure. 

Altar A’, in the foundations of the Hieroglyphic Stairway (9.16.5.0.0) at the 
Main Structure. 

Stela 16, found broken at the Main Structure, possibly not reused. 

Stela 17, reused as a building-block in the Great Plaza at the Main Structure 
after 9.12.5.0.0. 

Stela E, re-erected on the terrace west of the Great Plaza at the Main Structure 
after 9.12.5.0.0. 

Stela P, re-erected in the Western Court at the Main Structure about 9.17.0.0.0. 

Fragment S’, reused as a building-block in the facing of Mound 9 (g.11.15.0.0) 
at the Main Structure. 


That is, with the possible exception of Stela 16, they all occur in posi- 
tions for which they were not originally designed, and hence they may have 
been, and doubtless were, carried to these later positions from some earlier 
group or groups. Finally, since more than half of the early monuments have 
been found at Group 9 (nearly two-thirds, if we include Altar X and Stela 9 
at Groups 8 and to respectively, each within a kilometer of Group 9), it 


HISTORY OF COPAN DURING THE OLD EMPIRE. 419 


appears as not improbable that all the outlying monuments of the Early 
Period originally had been erected at Group 9, which we may perhaps 
appropriately call Old Copan, being in all likelihood the first settlement in 
the valley. 

The dates and provenance of Stele 7, E, and P, moreover, greatly 
strengthen this hypothesis. It has been shown: 

1. That Stela 7 is the only monument of the Early Period which was practically 
in situ (1.¢., fallen directly above its original foundations) when found. 

2. That Stelaz E and P at the Main Structure are surely not in situ where now 
found, since they occur in places which were not built until long after their con- 
temporaneous dates. 

3. That Stele 7, E, and P commemorated three successive hotun-endings 
in the Long Count, 9.9.0.0.0, 9.9.5.0.0, and 9.9.10.0.0 respectively. 


It seems reasonable to infer from these facts that Stele E and P, which 
marked the next two hotuns after 9.9.0.0.0, the date of Stela 7, had originally 
been erected at Group 9, probably near Stela 7, and that some time later, 
after the Great Plaza was built (1. ¢., after 9.12.5.0.0), Stela E and its altar 
were removed from Group 9g and carried to the Main Structure 2 kilometers 
east and re-erected there on the terrace on the west side of the Great Plaza, 
and further, that some time after the Western Court had been completed 
(about 9.17.0.0.0), Stela P was similarly removed from Group g and re-erected 
in the Western Court. 

Stela P is the last monument of the Early Period, and between it and 
Stele 12, 2, 10, 19, 23, 13, and 3, the first stele of the Middle Period, there 
is a lacuna in the sequence of the monuments of 25 or 30 years. Moreover, 
as will appear presently, not one of these seven earliest stele of the Middle 
Period is at Group 9, and only two of them are at the Main Structure, the 
rest being scattered from Santa Rita (Group 1), 14 kilometers east of Group 
9, to Hacienda Grande (Group 13), 3.5 kilometers west of Group 9. 

It appears probable, therefore, that at the end of the Early Period 
(after 9.9.10.0.0) a tremendous expansion took place, in the course of which 
the whole valley was intensively occupied for the first time, a number of 
smaller groups, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, and 13 being established (see plate 3); and 
coincident with this centrifugal movement, Group 9 began to decline in 
importance, no monuments at all being erected there during the Middle 
Period, and only five during the Great Period. 

Assuming, then, that all the monuments of the Early Period, wherever 
found, were originally erected at Group g, let us next examine the dates of 
the 13 stele now known from the period: 


Stela 20 Stela 16 Stela 24 Stela 7 
Stela 21 Stela 17 Stela 15 Stela E 
Stela 22 Stela 18 Stela 9 Stela P 
Stela 25 


Of these, the 7 in the first two columns are only doubtfully deciphered, 
although Stele 20 and 25 are probably correct as given, and Stele 17 and 
18 possibly so. The six in the last two columns are surely deciphered. 


420 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Beginning with the surely deciphered group, it has been shown in 
Chapter II that every one records a hotun-ending,! and that all but one, 
Stela E, a second or fourth hotun-ending, that is, a lahuntun or a katun- 
ending. Moreover, of the remaining 7, at least 4 (Stele 20, 25, 17, and 18), 
also probably recorded katun or lahuntun-endings. 

This important practice of erecting stele at the expiration of second 
and fourth hotuns, 7. ¢., lahuntun and katun-endings respectively, is encoun 
tered foi the first time here at Copan in 9.1.10.0.0 or 9.2.10.0.0, and at the 
expiration of first and third hotuns in 9.9.5.0.0, although the latter custom 
appears 10 years earlier in 9.8.15.0.0 at Piedras Negras (Stela 25), and by 
the Middle Period is found everywhere in the Old Empire. 

Because of this fact, and also because all of the surely dated early monu- 
ments elsewhere (see p. 411), the Tuxtla Statuette, the Leyden Plate, 
Stele 9 and 3 at Uaxactun, and Stele 3, 10, and 17 at Tikal, were not 
erected on hotun, lahuntun, or katun-endings, it appears reasonable to infer 
that this important custom, which in one form or another survived until 
the close of the New Empire in 1541 in northern Yucatan, a period of more 
than I,200 years, may have originated at Copan as early as 9.1.10.0.0 and 
spread elsewhere from here.’ 

If the 13 stele of the Early Period at Copan, all record lahuntun or 
katun-endings except Stela E, which records a third hotun-ending, let us 
ascertain how many lahuntuns and katuns there were between the dates of 
the earliest and latest of these monuments. 

Between 9.1.10.0.0 (Stela 20) and 9.9.10.0.0 (Stela P) inclusive, there 
are 17 lahuntuns and katuns, for which we have only 12 stele, exclusive of 
Stela E; that is, apparently 5 or 6 are still missing. An attempt has been 
made in the following list to assign 10 of these 12 stele to these 17 period- 
endings, the monuments marked (?) probably being correctly deciphered as 
given, those marked (??) being very doubtful. Stela 25 probably records the 
same lahuntun-ending as Stela 24; and it is impossible to say exactly where 
Stela 16 belongs, probably somewhere between 9.4.10.0.0 and 9.7.10.0.0. 


Stela 20, 9.1.10.0.0 (?) Stela 17, 9.6. 0.0.0 (?)8 
9.2. 0.0.0 Stela 9, 9.6.10.0.0 
Stela 24, 9.2.10.0.0 Stela 18, 9.7. 0.0.0 (?) 
9.3 540;0.0 Stela 21, 9.7.10.0.0 (??) 
Stela 22, 9.3.10.0.0 (??) 9.8. 0.0.0 
9.4. 0.0.0 9.8.10.0.0 
Stela 15, 9.4.10.0.0 Stela 7, 9.9. 0.0.0 
9.5. 0.0.0 Stela P, 9.9.10.0.0 
9.5-10.0.0 





1 The altar of Stela E, which actually records the current hotun-ending, has been regarded as textually one 
with Stela Ein this study. (See pp. 112, 128). 

2 If the readings suggested on page 392, note 1, for Stele 8 and g at Tikal, 9,0.10.0.0 and 9.2.0.0.0 respectively, 
should be correct, these monuments would be the earliest hotun-markers now known, and they would nullify the 
above conclusion, making Tikal the first Maya city to have inaugurated this important custom instead of Copan. 
As already noted, however, these two readings are so doubtful that they have been disregarded in the conclusions 
set forth in this chapter. 

3 Under the postulate that the Early Period stele prior to 9.9.5.0.0 record either lahuntun or katun-endings, 
Stela 17 can only be either 9.6.0.0.0 or 9.6.10.0.0, since its katun coefficient is surely 6 and the former is chosen 
here because the latter date is recorded on Stela 9. 


HISTORY OF COPAN DURING THE OLD EMPIRE. 421 


Even if the doubtfully deciphered stele, 22, 17, 18, and 21, are correctly 
assigned above, and allowing Stela 16 for one of the unfilled period-endings, 
there are still six lacune in the sequence of the early monuments. Since the 
first 4 early monuments concerning which there is little or no doubt all 
record lahuntun-endings, 1.¢., Stele 20, 24, 15, and 9, perhaps at first, and 
up to 9.6.0.0.0, stele were erected only on lahuntun-endings, and the katun- 
endings were permitted to pass by without being thus marked. Such an 
explanation is very unsatisfactory, as it presupposes the half-katun periods 
were of more importance than the katuns themselves, which would have 
been an unusual belief, to say the least. On the other hand, the 3 earliest 
surely deciphered stele all record lahuntun-endings, and if this were the case, 
and assuming Stela 22 may be referred to the lahuntun-ending 9.3.10.0.0, 
there would be only one break in the monumental sequence priot to 9.6.0.0.0, 
namely, 9.5.10.0.0, to which we may possibly assign Stela 16. 

If the katun-endings were also marked from 9.6.0.0.0 on, we have two 
lacune in the latter half of the Early Period, namely, at 9.8.0.0.0 and 
g.8.10.0.0, and even if Stela 21 be assigned to either of these dates, it still 
leaves two lacuna, as in that case there is no monument for 9.7.10.0.0. 

These results are not altogether satisfactory. Some of the readings sug- 
gested are very uncertain, and the assumption that lahuntun-endings were 
of greater importance than katun-endings, in spite of the fact that the 
remains apparently indicate such a fact, is even more doubtful. However, 
the following facts may be accepted as established: 

1. Surely as early as 9.2.10.0.0 (Stela 24), and probably as early as 9.1.10.0.0 
(Stela 20), the practice of marking the expiration of the successive lahuntuns and 
katuns was inaugurated at Copan. 

2. Of the 6 surely dated monuments of the Early Period at Copan, 5 record 
lahuntun and katun-endings and the sixth a third hotun-ending. 

3. On the basis of this periodicity for the erection of the stelz, 7. ¢., no first 
and third hotuns marked by stelz prior to 9.9.5.0.0, there are only 6 out of the 17 
possible period-endings, between 9.1.10.0.0 and 9.9.10.0.0 inclusive at Copan, for 
which no corresponding stelz have been found. 

4. Finally, this practice is found to have prevailed so much earlier at Copan 
than anywhere else, the first occurrence elsewhere being at least 125 years later, if 
we exclude the doubtfully deciphered Stelz 8 and 9 at Tikal, that there are excellent 
grounds for believing it may have originated at Copan, and from there spread 
elsewhere in the Old Empire and later carried over into the New Empire, having 
been the determining factor in the erection of stele for more than 1,200 years. 


One more point in connection with the Early Period at Copan demands 
our attention. In Chapter III, it will be remembered, Spinden expresses 
the belief that the two primitive human figures found under Altars X and 
Y in the foundations of Stele 5 and 4 respectively are the earliest sculptures 
at Copan, but since neither has any glyphs carved upon it, exact dating is 
impossible. 

This lack of exact chronological data about either is particularly 
unfortunate in view of the fact that both indubitably resemble similar 


422 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


sculptures of the Archaic type found in the highlands of Salvador and 
Guatemala, south and west of Copan respectively, notably a stone figure at 
the Hacienda of Miraflor, just outside of Guatemala City. (See fig. 67, a, 
b, and c, and pp. 208, 209.) Thus, had it been possible to date either of these 
two sculptures from Copan in the Maya chronological system, there would 





Fic. 67.—Anthropomorphic figures of the Archaic type: a, Copan, 
foundations of Stela 5; 4, Copan, foundations of Stela 
4; ¢, Hacienda Miraflor near Guatemala City. 


have been established at least one definite point of contact between the Old 
Empire and the Archaic culture, which seems to have had a far vaster exten- 
sion, and doubtless a much earlier origin than the Maya civilization as 
pointed out in the preceding section. 

Possibly these two figures may have been taken from some of the earlier 
inhabitants of the region, some Archaic people living south and west of 
Copan, and were placed in the foundations of Stele 4 and 5 as objects of 
unusual importance and sanctity. Or again, they may be very early Maya 
copies of still earlier Archaic sculptures found by the Maya when they first 
reached the region.!. Or again, they may date from a period at Copan before 
the hieroglyphic writing had been transferred to stone, a view the writer 
does not share, however, since he believes the Maya had been carving their 
inscriptions on stone for several centuries before they reached Copan. In 
any case, they do not controvert any of the conclusions reached above, and 
they may probably be referred to the same general period as Stela 20. 

Summing up the history of Copan during the Early Period, it appears 
probable that the branch of the Maya who colonized this region reached the 
Copan Valley shortly before, or not later than, the beginningof Cycle 9. In 
this connection the provenance and date of the Leyden Plate should be 
borne in mind. This small nephrite plate, as already noted on page 411, 
was found near the mouth of the Motagua River, some 130 kilometers 
northeast of Copan, and bears the very early date 8.14.3.1.12, which is about 
145 years earlier than the reading here suggested for Stela 20. Possibly this 
object may have been left behind at some intermediate stopping-place of the 
tribe on their migration southward from northern Peten (see plate 1 and fig. 
64), and it doubtless antedates the first settlement in the Copan Valley. 


1 Lothrop found a similar sculpture, although with a second figure on the back of the first, the whole being very 
crudely executed in block-like outlines similar to the sculptures under discussion, at La Florida, 50 kilometers 


northeast of Copan, in 1916. 





HISTORY OF COPAN DURING THE OLD EMPIRE. 423 


This first settlement appears to have been located at Group 9g, and here 
for the next 200 years all the monuments were probably erected, and here 
may be said to have been the capital, the religious and administrative center 
of the region. 

Judging from the provenance of the early monuments, it appears as 
not improbable that Group 9 was the only settlement in the valley during 
the Early Period, at least the only one which attained sufficient wealth and 
importance to have been able to execute and erect monuments. During 
this period the valley was doubtless put under cultivation from end to end, 
and reserves of wealth and experience accumulated which were to be utilized 
in the great expansion that took place at the beginning of the next period. 
Each lahuntun and katun as it passed was probably marked by the erection 
of a corresponding stela at Group 9, and monument by monument we may 
see reflected the increasing prosperity of the tribe. Perhaps as early as 
9.7.0.0.0 the priests attempted to portray the human figure on the fronts 
of their stele (Stela 18), and before the end of the period, 1. ¢., after 9.9.0.0.0, 
the all-glyphic stela began to pass out of fashion. 

We must believe that the rulers of the tribe during this period, whether 
hereditary or elective, civil, military, or ecclesiastic in character, were wise 
administrators, who occupied themselves in developing the resources of the 
surrounding region, in building and embellishing their capital, and in gen- 
erally extending their influence and the cult of their tribal deities. Finally, 
by the end of the period, the tribe had become so powerful and wealthy that 
it was able to expand the sphere of its activities beyond Group g and to 
establish other important settlements throughout the valley. 


THE MIDDLE PERIOD. 


The Middle Period at Copan opens with a hiatus in the sequence of the 
monuments, followed by a tremendous outburst of sculptural activity all 
over the valley in 9.11.0.0.0, on which latter date no less than 7 different 
stele were erected at 6 different groups. 

After Stela P in 9.9.10.0.0, a period of decentralization seems to have 
set in, during which the intensive occupation of the whole valley seems to 
have taken place, and 30 years later, almost as if by common consent, the 
current katun-ending, 9.11.0.0.0, was commemorated by the erection of 
stele at 6 different groups: Group I at the eastern end of the valley, 14 
kilometers distant from Old Copan; Group 2 on the north bank of the Copan 
River, 8.5 kilometers distant; Group 3 on the summit of a hill on the eastern 
side of the valley, 4.5 kilometers distant; the group which was later to become 
the Main Structure, where two stele bearing this date were erected, 2 kilo- 
meters distant; Group 12 on the summit of a hill at the western end of the 
valley, 2.5 kilometers west of Old Copan, and Group 13 in a little side-valley 
entering the main valley from the north, 3.5 kilometers west of Old Copan. 
Groups 7, II, 14, and 15 may have been founded at this same time, although 
no dated monuments have been found at any of them. (See plate 3.) 


424 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


But this centrifugal force, which must have threatened to disrupt the 
tribe, and which certainly cost Group 9 its position of preéminence in the 
valley, appears to have been of short duration. Of the six different groups 
where the katun-ending 9.11.0.0.0 was commemorated by the erection of a 
stela, only one has any other inscribed monuments, and that is the group 
which later became the Main Structure. 

In attempting to explain this condition, one point at least appears 
reasonably certain, namely, that these groups, with the exception of the 
Main Structure, did not continue to hold important positions in the valley, 
which is indicated by the fact that, with the single exception noted, no sub- 
sequent monuments were erected at any one of them. 

Perhaps the best explanation of the facts observed is that after this 
decentralizing wave had reached its crest in 9.11.0.0.0 there was a reaction, 
_ during which the former tendency toward centralization developed during 
the 200 years Group g had been the only settlement of importance in the 
valley, reasserted itself, and as a result the “ain Structure became the 
principal settlement in the valley and in the following century the next to 
largest city in the Old Empire, being second in size only to Tikal. 

The next question confronting us is, when was the group at the Main 
Structure founded? And in seeking the answer to it, we must again turn 
to the evidence afforded by the dated monuments. 

The earliest monument at the Main Structure, which is not obviously 
in a position indicating secondary usage, is Stela E; but, as we have already 
seen, neither Stela E nor Stela P can be regarded as 1m situ where now found, 
strictly speaking, both probably having been removed to the Main Struc- 
ture from Group g long subsequent to their original erection at the latter site. 

The next earliest monuments are Stele 2 and 3 in the Middle Court, 
which may or may not be in their original positions, and the earliest monu- 
ment at the Main Structure surely im situ is Stela 1, also in the Middle Court. 
Let us next examine the dates and provenance of these three stele. 

Stele 2 and 3 both date from 9.11.0.0.0, as already noted, and Stela 1 
from 9.11.15.0.0, the provenance of all three, as just stated, being the same, 
i. €., the Middle Court. The first is very doubtfully in its original position; 
the second probably so, because a cache of objects, though not in a stone- 
lined chamber, was found under its foundation-stone; and the third surely 
so, the chamber under its foundation-stone having been built at the same 
time as Mound g. 

It was suggested in Chapter III that Stele 10 and 12 at Groups 12 and 3 
respectively, both of which were erected at approximately the same time 
as Stele 2 and 3,! may have had something to do in determining the location 
of a settlement at the Main Structure, possibly by defining some particular 
line of sight, which now cuts across the southern slope of the Acropolis. 

We have seen how, under the influence of a strong decentralizing move- 
ment, possibly due to the normal expansion and growth of a people who had 


1 The only date on Stela 10 is only 100 days earlier than 9.11.0.0.0, i. ¢., 9.10.19.13.0. 


HISTORY OF COPAN DURING THE OLD EMPIRE. 425 


been living and prospering for 200 years in one place, the whole valley was 
occupied and a number of smaller settlements established in 9.11.0.0.0, 
among others possibly the Main Structure, since the earliest monuments 
possibly in situ there present this date. Certainly 15 years later a settle- 
ment had been made here, a temple built (Mound 9), and a stela erected 
(Stela 1). 

The fact that the three earliest stele at the Main Structure which can 
possibly be regarded as in situ all occur within 75 meters of each other and 
in the same plaza, suggests that this is the earliest part of the Main Struc- 
ture, and the fact that one of them was built in the foundations of Mound 
9 suggests that Mound 9 probably is the oldest building now extant, in its 
original form at least, at the Main Structure. 

The temple on its summit was excavated by Gordon in 1895 and was 
found to be devoid of sculptural decoration, in which respect it is unlike 
most of the other temples of the Acropolis group at the Main Structure, 
Nos. 11, 21a, 22, and 18 for example, and therefore presumably earlier. 

The chief objection to the hypothesis that Mound g is the oldest build- 
ing now extant at the Main Structure, and that Stele 2, 3, and 1 were the 
first stele erected there, is the possibility that the Acropolis could not have 
been built in the 120 years between 9.11.0.0.0 and 9.17.0.0.0, when it is 
known to have been completed. (See the dates of Temple 21a and the 
Reviewing-stand in the Western Court, pp. 318, 321.) 

The cross-section of the Acropolis exposed by the river has a maximum 
height of 40 meters and shows five or six earlier plaza-levels, mostly in the 
lower half, and below the present floor-level of the Eastern Court. It has 
been argued! that to have built this vast artificial construction a long 
period of time was necessary, several centuries at the very least, but after a 
study of all the evidence available the writer has not reached this conclu- 
sion; on the contrary, he believes that the Acropolis could have been built, 
and in fact probably was built, in the 120 years between 9.11.0.0.0 and 
9.17.0.0.0, when the Eastern and Western Courts were completed. In sup- 
port of this view it may be pointed out that the construction of Mound 26, 
which is an integral part of the Acropolis, was apparently not started until 
9.13.18.17.9, the date on the lowest step of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, that 
is, something less than 50 years before its completion, less than 60 years 
before the completion of Temple 11 nearby, and less than 75 years before 
the completion of the whole Acropolis. 

It has been shown that the Great Plaza was not laid out until after 
9.12.5.0.0 (Stela I) and was probably completed by 9.13.10.0.0 (Stela J), 
25 years later; and, judging from the dates on the Acropolis itself, the com- 
pletion of successive units of that construction is to be measured by decades 
rather than centuries. 

Assuming for the moment that no temples stood on the river-plain here 
until after 9.11.0.0.0, we have Temple 9 being dedicated 15 years later 





1 Gordon, 1896, p. 10. 


426 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


(9.11.15.0.0) and the foundations of Mound 26 being laid 42 years later 
(9.13.18.17.9). Doubtless we must also assume that during these 57 years 
other temples had been built east of the site of Mound 26, corresponding to 
the lower plaza-levels in the cross-section of the Acropolis exposed by the river. 

Mound 26, the Hieroglyphic Stairway on its western side, Temple 26 
on its summit, and Stela M at its western base, an undertaking involving a 
great outlay of labor, had been completed and were dedicated in 9.16.5.0.0, 
45 years later. Meanwhile, work on the substructure on the south side of the 
Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway was going forward, and 5 years later, 
in 9.16.10.0.0, Stela N was erected, and less than 3 years later, in 9.16.12.5.17, 
the very important Temple 11 was dedicated and another large section of the 
Acropolis completed. 

Although we have no dates to guide us here, we may doubtless assume 
that toward the close of the Middle Period, 7.e., during the course of con- 
struction of Mound 26, the part of the Acropolis lying to its south was also 
changing shape, gradually being built higher, and reaching the next higher 
plaza-levels in the cross-section exposed by the river on the east side. 

During the 8 years between 9.16.12.5.17 and 9.17.0.0.0, the Acropolis 
received its final additions. The whole southwestern corner marking the 
Western Court was probably filled in and dedicated in 9.17.0.0.0, as indi- 
cated by the date on the Reviewing-stand at the northern end of this court. 
At the same time the whole eastern side of the Acropolis was also raised 
to its final levels, Temples 21 and 22 being dedicated some time between 
9.16.12.5.17 and 9.17.0.0.0, and Temple 214 on the latter date. 

Judging from the rapidity with which these several parts of the Acrop- 
olis seem to have been successively completed, as indicated by the dates 
actually recorded upon integral members of this architectural complex, 
the writer believes it is probably safe to assume that the Acropolis was not 
commenced much, if any earlier than 9.11.0.0.0 and possibly not before 
9.13.18.17.9, and was completed in 9.17.0.0.0, that is to say, it was probably 
something between 60 and 120 years in building. 

Returning now to the general history of Copan during the Middle 
Period, we may probably assume that the Main Structure was founded in 
g.11I.0.0.0, or at least became the most important settlement in the valley 
from that date on, soon eclipsing Group 9, which had hitherto been the 
capital of the region. 

Moreover, of the other five groups founded at the same time, not one has 
another monument of any date, and it seems probable that, at least in so far as 
these particular groups were concerned, all the architectural and sculptural 
efforts of the tribe were centered on the construction and embellishment of 
buildings at the Main Structure. This appears clearly in the second column of 
Appendix [X, where, after 9.11.0.0.0, it will be seen that the only settlement in 
the valley outside of the Main Structure at which monuments were erected 
during the Middle Period was Group 8, midway between the Main Struc- 


HISTORY OF COPAN DURING THE OLD EMPIRE. 427 


ture and Group 9. In short, the extensive occupation of the valley had been 
effected, and now for the next century and a half the principal efforts of the 
tribe were devoted to beautifying and enlarging their new capital. 

Some time during the first 15 years, work on Temple (Mound) 9 was 
commenced, and in 9.11.15.0.0 both this temple and Stela 1 were dedicated, 
the former facing south, where, during the next century, the Acropolis was 
slowly to take shape. (See plate 6.) 

The next hotun-ending, 9.12.0.0.0, also a katun-ending as well, was 
commemorated by the erection of two round altars, both presenting Initial 
Series, being the first examples of altars which may have been used inde- 
pendently of stele yet encountered, one associated with Stela 1 and Temple 
g, and the other at a new settlement, Group 8, which seems to have been 
founded about this time. 

The next hotun-ending, 9.12.5.0.0, was marked by the erection of 
Stela I, an extremely important monument, since its location probably 
determines the date of construction of the Great Plaza. 

Stela I stands in a niche on the terrace on the east side of the Great 
Plaza in such a way as to indicate that it was erected before this terrace 
was built, that is to say, this terrace could not have been built until after 
9.12.5.0.0 (see plate 6). Probably shortly after this date the Great Plaza 
was laid out in its present form, and possibly completed or at least well 
under way before the erection of Stela J, 25 years later. 

The next hotun-ending was commemorated by the erection of Stela 6 
at Group 8, and then, with 9.12.15.0.0 missing in the monumental sequence, 
the next, 9.13.0.0.0, also a katun-ending as well, was commemorated by the 
dedication of two rectangular table-like altars, H’ and I’. These are now 
found in the Western Court, but the writer supposes them to have been 
brought hither from some other part of the Main Structure, assuming the 
Western Court not to have been built until 80 years later. 

The next hotun is not represented by any known monument, but the 
next, 9.13.10.0.0, is recorded on Stela J at the southeast corner of Mound 3, 
one of the complex of terraces surrounding the Great Plaza. (See plate 6.) 

The last monument of the Middle Period is Stela 5 at Group 8, dating 
either from 9.13.15.0.0 or 9.14.0.0.0; and then the closing 20 years of the 
period, 9.14.0.0.0 to 9.15.0.0.0, are represented by no monuments, being a 
complete blank, so far as the inscriptions are concerned. 

We have seen, however, that this was an epoch of great building activ- 
ity at Copan. The construction of Mound 26, and probably of Mound 11 
and the whole eastern side of the Acropolis, had just been started, and was 
absorbing the energies of all the artisan class. At the beginning of the 
Great Period, 7. ¢., in 9.15.0.0.0 and 9.15.5.0.0, as will appear presently, 
time was taken to erect three stele and an altar, but after 9.15.5.0.0 there is 
another 20-year hiatus in the monumental sequence, unless we except the 


428 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


doubtfully dated and unimportant inscribed steps on the southern side of 
Mound 2. Work was doubtless being pushed forward on the whole Acropolis 
complex from 9.14.0.0.0 to 9.16.5.0.0, at which latter date we have seen 
Mound 26, Temple 26, the Hieroglyphic Stairway, and Stela M were all 
completed and dedicated, and during the next 15 years the series of mag- 
nificent temples surrounding the Eastern and Western Courts, 11, 16, 18, 19, 
21, 21a, and 22, were erected, which amply accounts for the almost complete 
absence of inscriptions dating from these 45 years, elsewhere so productive. 

Another factor which may have tended to cut down the output of 
inscriptions at Copan during the closing decade of the Middle Period is 
the possible absorption of her resources in the colonization of the neighboring 
city of Quirigua, probably by emigrants from Copan, in 9.14.13.4.17, and 
additions thereto in 9.15.6.14.6, the latter date being actually recorded at 
both sites. 

All lines of evidence point to this fact. In the first place, Quirigua is 
not more than 60 kilometers north of Copan in an air-line, but is several 
hundred kilometers south of the nearest large Maya city to the north. 
Again, the art and architecture of the two cities are practically identical; 
indeed, the art of Copan and Quirigua shows closer relationship in technique 
as well as in subject-matter than does that of any other two cities in the Old 
Empire. Finally, the dates at Quirigua indicate that it was founded in 
9.14.13.4.17, a fact substantiated in a general way by the art there, which 
shows no archaistic features whatsoever, but even on the earliest monuments 
is already perfected and in full flower. 

The writer believes the earliest monument at Quirigia is Altar M, 
dating either from 9.15.0.0.0 or 9.15.3.2.0, some 7 or I0 years after the city 
was founded. Even assuming that the colonists came fully equipped from 
Copan, it would probably have taken them at least that time to have felled 
the forest, put the land under cultivation, laid out their city, located the 
quarries, taken out and transported the stone, and finally to have carved 
the first monument. Indeed, the first hotun-ending commemorated by the 
erection of a stela was 9.15.15.0.0, 15 years later, although after this latter 
date not a single hotun-ending is omitted in the monumental sequence for the 
next 65 years. 

It appears as not unlikely that the probable foundation of Quirigua by 
colonists from Copan in or about 9.14.13.4.17 withdrew from the mother-city 
a number of her skilled artisans, especially stone-workers, masons, and 
sculptors, and this, coupled with the fact that the work on the Acropolis 
was also drawing heavily on the resources of the tribe, doubtless explains 
the absence of inscriptions from the closing katun of the Middle Period, and 
with few exceptions from the opening katun of the Great Period. 

The century from 9.10.0.0.0 to 9.15.0.0.0 was an important one for this 
southern branch of the Maya. During the previous period the tribe had 
grown beyond the capacity of its original capital at Group 9, and during the 


HISTORY OF COPAN DURING THE OLD EMPIRE. 429 


first katun of the Middle Period established settlements throughout the 
valley. After 9.11.0.0.0 the capital was shifted from Group 9 to the Main 
Structure, 7. ¢., nearer the middle of the valley, and an extensive building 
program inaugurated there. Finally, toward the close of the period, the 
neighboring city of Quirigua was founded, probably by colonists from Copan, 
at which time the provincial phase of the tribe’s history may be said to have 
come to an end, and from this time on for the next 70 years, 1.¢., the first 
half of the Great Period, Copan was the most brilliant city architecturally 
and sculpturally, if not indeed the most powerful, in the Old Empire. 


THE GREAT PERIOD. 


The Great Period at Copan opened with the erection of two handsome 
stele at the Main Structure and an altar at Group 9, the last being the first 
monument to be set up at the former capital for more than a century, and 
the next hotun-ending, 9.15.5.0.0, was commemorated by the erection of 
another imposing stela in the Great Plaza, especially interesting as being the 
earliest example known of the exclusive use of full-figure glyphs. 

We have already seen how, before the erection of these several monu- 
ments, the scene of sculptural and architectural activity had shifted to the 
Acropolis, and after the erection of Stela D for the next 20 years work went 
steadily forward on different parts of that great artificial substructure. 

In 9.16.5.0.0, as we have already seen, a large unit of this construction 
was completed—Mound 26, Temple 26, Stela M, and the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway—the last being by far the largest text in the Corpus Inscriptionum 
Mayarum. A hotun later, Stela N was dedicated, the last stela to be used 
for such a purpose at Copan, and less than two and a half years later the 
most important date in the Great Period at Copan, 9.16.12.4.17, was 
recorded as the dedicatory date of Temple 11 and Altars V, R, and U. 

Unfortunately, the nature of the event which rendered this particular 
date of such importance in the annals of Copan is unknown. It is different 
from the great majority of the dates heretofore encountered, being at the 
end of no particular division in the Maya chronological system, such as a 
tun, hotun, lahuntun, or katun, and for that reason probably is to be inter- 
preted as referring to the occurrence of some actual historical event or astro- 
nomical phenomenon, although which we are unable to say. 

On the evidence afforded by the glyphs thus far deciphered in the 
inscriptions, which are practically limited to the characters used in recording 
Initial, Secondary, and Supplementary Series, Period Ending, and Calendar 
Round dates, we would be justified in assuming that it was some important 
astronomical phenomenon which had taken place in 9.16.12.5.17; but, 
judged by the evidence as a whole, and particularly the three factors enum- 
erated at the top of the next page, it seems necessary to admit that this event 
may possibly have been of an historical nature, such as the death or acces- 
sion of a ruler, a notable conquest, or even the dedication of an important 
building devoted to religious uses, like Temple 11 where it was recorded. 


430 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


1. Many of the Aztec codices, which were doubtless patterned after Maya 
models originally, are wholly historical in character. 

2. The Books of Chilan Balam, actual Maya redactions in the Spanish script 
of native Maya originals now lost, contain chronicles which are obviously copies of 


historical records in the Maya hieroglyphic writing. 
3. The direct statements of the Spanish chroniclers of the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries to the effect that the Maya had the practice of recording their 


history in their books. (See pp. 42, 43.) 


Whatever may have been the nature of this event, whether historical 
or astronomical, it was of sufficient importance that, 20 years later, its first 
katun anniversary, 9.17.12.5.17, although not a tun, hotun, lahuntun, or 
katun-ending, was commemorated by the erection of two monuments 
(Altar T and Stela 8) and possibly by a temple or hieroglyphic stairway 
(Fragment E’). 

After Stela N the hotun-endings at Copan appear to have been marked 
by larger constructions, such as Temple 21a or the Reviewing-stand in the 
Western Court, or by altars, the subsequent stele apparently being devoted 
to the record of tonalamatls, Calendar Rounds or other unusual counts. 

But the Acropolis was now nearing completion; as we have already 
seen, both the Eastern and Western Courts being finished in 9.17.0.0.0, 
and the last monument in the latter being erected either on the following 
hotun-ending, 9.17.5.0.0, or I5 years later, 9.18.0.0.0 (?).' Moreover, the 
occupation of the city itself was also now drawing to an end. In the tonala- 
matl from 9.17.12.0.0 to 9.17.12.13.0 the last five stele at Copan were erected, 
four in the Great Plaza at the Main Structure and the fifth a kilometer west 
of Old Copan at Group Io. 

This particular tonalamatl was of unusual importance, as has already 
been pointed out, since within its space fell the first katun anniversary of 
the important date 9.16.12.5.17. Two stele, C and H, were dedicated at the 
beginning of this tonalamatl, a third, Stela 8, commemorates the first katun 
anniversary of 9.16.12.5.17, and two others, F and 4, being dedicated at its 
end in 9.17.12.13.0, the latter being not only the latest but also the most 
beautiful of all the Copan stele. 

The three latest dates at Copan are the hotun-endings, 9.18.0.0.0, 
9.18.5.0.0, and 9.18.10.0.0, recorded on Altars W, Gs, and G, respectively, 
after which there are no later monuments, the inscriptions cease, the record 
becomes a blank, and the curtain falls for the last time on the scene of Maya 
activity in the valley, and indeed in the whole surrounding country. 

Doubtless the city was occupied for a few years longer, but some time 
during the next 20 years and before the beginning of Cycle 10 both Copan 
and Quirigua, and indeed most of the other Old Empire cities, were aban- 
doned, never to be reoccupied, and the Maya again set forth on another 
long exodus which finally brought them to other lands, other destinies, 
and five centuries later to their renaissance. 


1 The provenance of the monument presenting this date, Altar W, is doubtful. (See page 364). 


HISTORY OF COPAN DURING THE OLD EMPIRE. 431 


The history of Copan during the Great Period is the history of the Main 
Structure, and here, in altar, stela, stairway, temple, palace, court, and 
plaza, we may read the record of the tribe’s growing power and wealth. Her 
increasing influence outside of the valley has already been noted, as, for 
example, the colonization of Quirigua by emigrants from Copan at the close 
of the Middle Period. But during the Great Period more distant colonies 
were established, at Paraiso, Rio Amarillo, and even on the other side 
of the divide in the Chamelecon Valley at Los Higos. (See figure 57.) 
Fortunately, at the last-mentioned site the lahuntun-ending 9.17.10.0.0 is 
recorded, so that we know at least one of her colonies besides Quirigua 
was occupied at the height of the Great Period; in fact, this latter date is 
only 2 years earlier than the last group of stele in the Great Plaza. 

Her sphere of esthetic influence we may imagine to have extended far 
beyond this cluster of southern Maya cities, of which she was easily the 
leader, and to have been felt far to the south, southeast, east, and northeast, 
where peoples of much lower cultures eagerly copied, as best such outer bar- 
barians might, her art, sculpture, and ceramics, decorative motives of the 
latter being traceable as far to the southeast as Costa Rica. 

In the northwest, 7. ¢., the Peten region, she must have come in contact, 
if not indeed in open conflict, with some of the great northern cities, Tikal, 
Nakum, or Naranjo, for example, and in this direction her sphere of actual 
dominion probably did not extend beyond the Golfo Dulce or the Sarstoon 
River. (See plate 1 and fig. 57.) 

In size Copan was second only to Tikal, and in learning and art she had 
no peers. The wealth of her inscriptions, probably comprising as high as 
40 per cent. of the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum, has already been noted. 
In sculpture she enjoyed a similar preéminence not only in mass of material 
but also in superiority of workmanship, technical processes, and the like. 
In the extent of her architecture alone she may have fallen somewhat behind 
her great northern rival. 

Judged as a whole, however, Copan may be aptly called “the Athens of 
the New World,” a title the writer has been wont to bestow upon her in 
drawing analogies from the ancient cities of the Old World; and in closing 
this summary of her history it may be claimed with perfect assurance that 
no other city of aboriginal America ever attained so high a level of cultural 
achievement. 

The curve of civilization at Copan, based upon the prevalency of the 
monuments, is shown graphically in figure 68, the data upon which it is 
based appearing in Appendix IX. The abscisse of the curve are the suc- 
cessive hotuns of the Long Count shown by the vertical lines, every fourth 
one of which, corresponding to a katun-ending as well, being heavier. The 
dates of these several hotuns appear above, only those corresponding to the 
second and fourth ones, 7.¢., the lahuntuns and katuns respectively, being 
written out. The brackets above indicate the three periods of the Old 
Empire. The ordinates of the curve are the number of times any given 


432 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


hotun occurs as the contemporaneous date of different monuments, all con- 
temporaneous dates not hotun-endings being plotted as at the ends of their 
corresponding hotuns. Thus, for example, all the monuments which date 
from 9.16.12.5.17 have been plotted as dating from 9.16.15.0.0, the current 
hotun-ending. In the Early and Middle Periods, when practically all of the 
monuments were erected at hotun-endings, this has no appreciable effect 
on the curve, but after 9.16.10.0.0, when this practice began to fall into 
disuse, it introduces certain minor variations between hotun-endings not 
shown in figure 68. The black dots on the curve indicate the number of 





EARLY PERIOD MIDDLE PERIOD GREAT PERIOD 
ooo oosec0ooo0 coc ona 820 eo sooo coeosoc soc oo Oo OO 0 6.0 60 CoO OS, ClaorS 
SSODCDCSGEOOCOSGKDSGCGOSGOSKCOeG DC OOO ae S OG OS G6 So 6S 0 6'O'O Gro oor 
CSI SS FS ES GS GC GPC gro lg SQ S'S SS Sere CROC OS GEO GO CO hOt CRC Re naa 
SOKA HANK HGEH HH HHEEKNKGHGAG GSH He HN GAKXEHAS Er REGAagdodH 
HHKAFGHTHAGHKHGHFHAHKAGHGHAGHAHHHGFHHHHHRHHHFKHHHHHHRHHHHHSGASD 


























OFPNOF TO WMOO 





Fic. 68.— Diagram showing the chronologic distribution and frequency of the dated monuments at Copan. 


monuments assigned to the corresponding hotun-ending; when the curve 
passes through a vertical line without such a dot, it indicates that no monu- 
ments have yet been found which date from that particular hotun. The 
outstanding features of the curve are: 


1. The practically stationary position at the first ordinate above the base- 
line (0) throughout the Early Period, with stations only at second and fourth hotun- 
endings until 9.9.10.0.0 is reached. This may be interpreted as indicating that 
throughout the Early Period the lahuntun and katun-endings were for the most 
part commemorated by the erection of but a single monument.! 

2. The first long minimum, from 9.9.10.0.0 to 9.11.0.0.0. This return of the 
curve to the base-line for 25 years, 7. ¢., until the hotun-ending 1n 9.11.0.0.0, may 
be interpreted as indicating that during this period the extensive occupation of the 
valley was under way and new groups were being established, after the long period 
of quiescence at Group 9, during which the tribe was slowly gaining in strength. 

3. The sudden upward swing of the curve in 9.11.0.0.0, to the first maximum. 
This may be interpreted as indicating that the extensive occupation of the valley 
after the close of the Early Period and during the first katun of the Middle Period 
had been completed by this date. 

4. The sudden drop of the curve to the second ordinate above the base-line 
after 9.11.0.0.0 and its continuation there with but minor variations until the last 





1 Stela 15 and Altar Q’,Stela 16 and Altar Y, and Stela 17 and Altar X have been plotted in figure 68 as three 
monuments instead of six, each pair being regarded as a single monument like Stela E and its altar. In all 
probability Altar Q’ was formerly associated with Stela 15, since both record the same date, and the other two 
associations have been suggested as not improbable. Altars J’, K’, L’, M’, P’, and A’ and Stelz 22 and 21 have 
been omitted from figure 68 as being of too uncertain date to plot properly, and the inscribed peccary skull from 
Tomb 1 (see pages 379-381) on the grounds that it is not a monument and hence does not properly belong to 
the monumental sequence. 


OTHER CITIES OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 433 


katun of the Middle Period. This may be interpreted as indicating that the tribe, 
while unable to maintain the high level of seven monuments for each hotun-ending, 
was able to erect two on most of these occasions, showing. a tendency, however, to 
drop back to second and fourth hotun-endings, as in the Early Period. <A fact not 
disclosed by figure 68 is that most of the monuments after 9.11.0.0.0 were erected 
at the Main Structure, which from this time on became the capital of the region. 

5. [he second long minimum from 9.14.0.0.0 to 9.16.5.0.0 (not very apparent 
in fig. 68). This second long return of the curve to the base-line for 45 years, 1. ¢., 
until the hotun-ending in 9.16.5.0.0, save for the erection of four monuments only, 
may be interpreted as indicating the period during which the Acropolis was under 
construction. 

6. The several and frequent maxima after 9.16.5.0.0, until the second and third 
high points of the curve are reached in 9.16.15.0.0 and 9.17.15.0.0 respectively. 
This may be interpreted as indicating that the height of sculptural and architec- 
tural activity was reached at Copan, as everywhere else, in the eighteenth katun, 
1. €., from 9.17.0.0.0 to 9.18.0.0.0. 

7. The sudden drop to the third ordinate in g.18.0.0.0 and to the first ordinate 
in 9.18.5.0.0 and in g.18.10.0.0, and its final return to the base-line before 9.18.15.0.0. 
This may be interpreted as indicating a swift loss of power before 9.18.0.0.0, though 
no loss of technical proficiency, and the final abandonment of the city in the follow- 
ing katun before 9.18.15.0.0. 


OTHER CITIES OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 

Before closing this study of the Copan inscriptions, it appears advisable 
to describe briefly the dates of the other principal cities of the Old Empire, 
so that the chronology of Copan may be compared with that of her con- 
temporaries. 


CEDPEMPIKE 


EARLY PERIOD MIDDLE PERIOD GREAT PERIOD 














eet aloo nse o Gca5ee Goin eine @.cloh ene dcdaadgagacageasaages 
rn ee tee ee eee ee a ee oS Se ee So ee oe ee ce ees see sesesesagsg 
ToGuOicuc da ogo da OGG Sic GO aoe GS Og@sSaaoscgogeGagecesocogd gece gGdceddgeogggdcgsgcscgad 
See See eid se dad ots eH dK KG IgA N ATHY GE EE eadgdgsddddda 
Froos EGA QURSTIELIEGEARINRENT UID TRUE TNGL RUST Ene TinT Tien TH HEPAT TaTT Ine aaa TTT rena Ted Teenie PTL na ee 

ACTUN HODGE Giana ag iain aaa aa 

AL 

AN 


IRAS NEGRAS 
ANJO 


i 


Fic. 69.—Diagram showing periods of occupation of the principal Old Empire cities. 


CHEN ITZA 
MTE 
RIGUA 
HONRADEZ 
BAL 










IAS CALIENTES 
RES 

NAL 

IQUE VIEJO 

-N SANTO 





434 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


These chronological data are shown graphically in figure 69, where the 
vertical lines indicate the successive hotun-endings of Maya chronology 
from 8.14.0.0.0 to 10.3.0.0.0, every fourth line, corresponding to a katun- 
ending, being heavier. As in the case of figure 68, the dates of these several 
hotuns appear above, only those of the second and fourth hotuns, the 
lahuntuns, and katuns respectively being written out. The brackets above 
indicate the corresponding periods of the Old Empire, that at the extreme 
right, beginning after 10.2.0.0.0, belonging to the second or Transitional 
Period of the New Empire. (See Appendix II, p.505.) 

The names of the different cities of the Old Empire at which dates have 
been deciphered appear in the column at the left, and their corresponding 
periods of occupation, based upon the earliest and latest contemporaneous 
dates at each, are shown by the heavy black horizontal lines running across 
the figure. In cases where the earliest dates are doubtfully deciphered, as, 
for example, at Copan (Stela 20), La Honradez (Stele 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9), and 
Itsimte (Altars 1 and 2), or where the earlier dates have not been deciphered 
at all, and the earlier character of the monument or monuments rests on the 
stylistic criteria, as, for example, at Tikal (Stele 4, 7, 8, and 9), heavy 
broken lines carry back the solid lines to the supposed starting-points. 

The real difficulty in presenting these data is not in the horizontal 
arrangement, since the earliest and latest dates are fairly certain at most of 
the cities, but in the vertical arrangement, that is, the order in which the 
cities should follow each other, whether chronologic or geographic. This 
matter is further complicated by the fact that eight of the cities in figure 69 
have only a single date deciphered at each—Los Higos, Aguas Calientes, Tzen- 
dales, El Cayo, Yaxha,! Ucanal, Benque Viejo, and Chichen Itza;? and there 
are six others, which have an interval of a katun or less between their earliest 
and latest dates—Quen Santo, Cancuen, La Mar, Itsimte, Ixkun,and Flores. 

For the purposes of this investigation it has seemed best to follow the 
chronological arrangement in figure 69, because it shows more clearly than 
the geographic arrangement the growth and expansion of the Maya civiliza- 
tion during the Old Empire; it fails, however, to bring out the progressive 
abandonment of the cities, beginning in the west and south and gradually 
drawing into the northeast and north until the only Old Empire cities which 
wereoccupied at the beginning of Cycle 10 were Flores, Tikal, Nakum, Ucanal, 
and Benque Viejo in northeastern Peten and Seibal in central Peten. 

In using figure 69 it should be remembered that, as plotted, any monu- 
ment recording a hotun-ending is assumed to have covered that entire hotun; 
similarly, monuments recording lahuntun and katun-endings are assumed 
to have covered the corresponding lahuntuns and katuns respectively; that 








1 There are other monuments at Yaxha, Ucanal, and Benque Viejo, but they are in such bad condition that 
the writer has been unable to date them approximately, even upon stylistic grounds. Thus, for example, there 
are certainly much later monuments at Yaxha than g.11.5.0.0, which itself is a doubtful reading, and there are 
surely earlier monuments at Ucanal than 10.1.0.0.0; in fact, the monument recording this latter date (Stela 3) is 
probably the latest at this site. 

2 There are also other dates at Chichen Itza, but they are later and fall in the New Empire. 


OTHER CITIES OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 435 


is to say, if a hotun-marker, as, for example, Stela 6 at Yaxha, records the 
hotun-ending 9.11.5.0.0, the heavy black line corresponding to Yaxha really 
begins a hotun earlier, 7. ¢., at 9.11.0.0.0, because such monuments, although 
actually erected on the hotun-endings, in reality stood for the entire period 
back to the next preceding hotun-ending. 

Again, if the monument is a lahuntun-marker, that is, when no first or 
third hotun-markers have been found at the site, as, for example, Stela 1 at 
Los Higos, 9.17.10.0.0, the heavy black line corresponding to Los Higos is 
carried back to 9.17.0.0.0, because the lahuntun ending in 9.17.10.0.0 began 
the day following 9.17.0.0.0. 

Finally, if the monument is a katun-marker, that is, when no first, 
second, or third hotun-markers have been found at the site, as, for example, 
Stela 3 at Ucanal, 10.1.0.0.0, the heavy black line corresponding to Ucanal 
is carried back to 10.0.0.0.0, since the katun ending in 10.1.0.0.0 began the 
day after 10.0.0.0.0. 

It follows, then, that the heavy black lines in figure 69 begin a hotun, 
lahuntun, or katun earlier, as the case may be, than the earliest contempora- 
neous date at each site, a necessary condition from the Maya method of reckon- 
ing time in terms of elapsed units; and in using figure 69 this point should be 
constantly borne in mind. Practically, however, this makes little difference in 
the relative lengths of the several periods of occupation, since all the cities 
are treated in the same way, and the maximum error possible when the 
earliest date is a katun-ending is only 15 years, and when it is a lahuntun- 
ending only 5 years. When it is a hotun-ending there is no error at all. This 
possible source of error arises from the fact that when the earliest date is a 
katun-ending, the writer has had to assume in figure 69 that such a monu- 
ment stood for the whole katun, whose ending only it records, whereas it 
may only have stood for a lahuntun or a first or third hotun, giving rise to 
errors of 10, 15, and 5 years respectively, depending upon the practice at 
the site in question. And in the case of a lahuntun-ending, it has been 
assumed that such a monument stood for the whole lahuntun, whereas it 
may only have stood for a hotun, giving an error of 5 years. These are neg- 
ligible quantities, however, when it is taken into consideration that all the 
cities in figure 69, in the very nature of the case, must have been occupied 
some little time, both before and after their earliest and latest contempo- 
raneous dates respectively, and these possible minor errors in no way invali- 
date the comparative value of the data given. 

A few exceptions should be noted. In the case of Quirigua the earliest 
date is really 9.14.13.4.17 as plotted, and not a hotun, lahuntun, or katun 
later, as usually the case in this figure. This date, however, is not a hotun, 
lahuntun, or katun-ending in the Long Count, and probably refers to a 
definite historic or astronomic event. 

In the case of Chichen Itza, although it has only one date in the Old 
Empire, namely, 10.2.10.0.0, its occupation has been extended back surely to 
g.17.0.0.0 on the basis of the chronicle from the Book of Chilan Balam of 


436 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Mani, and doubtfully to 9.13.0.0.0 on the basis of the chronicle in the 
Tizimin manuscript. 

One other point in connection with figure 69 remains to be discussed. 
The small stela found by Spinden and the writer at El Pabellon on the west 
bank of the Usumacinta River in 1914, bearing the early date 9.10.0.0.0, 
has been regarded as belonging to the same settlement as Altar de Sacrificios 
on the opposite side of the river a kilometer above. This is an early date, 
and since there are two other monuments at Altar de Sacrificios not more 
than 10 years later, as well as a considerable number of mounds, the latter 
not being found at El Pabellén, and since it is unlikely that at this early 
date there would have been two different settlements so close together, El 
Pabell6n and Altar de Sacrificios have been grouped together as one settle- 
ment in figure 69. 

. As already stated, figure 69 shows that Uaxactun is the oldest Maya 

city known (8.14.10.13.15), and in addition it would appear to have been 
occupied longer than any other, 492 years. Tikal comes next in length of 
occupation, 381 years (9.2.13.0.0); and if it is assumed that the earlier stele 
there (Stele 8 and 9g for example) carry back the monumental sequence 
at least 52 years earlier, 7.¢., to the beginning of Cycle 9, as the writer believes, 
its period of occupation is 433 years. But, as we have already seen, these 
two cities are not more than 25 or 30 kilometers apart, and were doubtless 
inhabited by people of the same tribe, and were possibly under one ruler. 
If so, we may group them together in this comparison, and extend the occu- 
pation of Uaxactun-Tikal to 541 years, 1. ¢., from 8.14.10.13.15 to 10.2.0.0.0. 

Copan, although at least a century and probably a century and a half 
later than Uaxactun-Tikal, comes next both in antiquity (9.2.10.0.0) and in 
length of occupation, surely 325 years, or 345 years if the date suggested for 
of Stela 20 is accepted as correct (9.1.10.0.0). 

For the next 120 to 140 years Copan and Uaxactun-Tikal appear to 
have been the only centers of the Maya people; indeed, only three other 
cities, so far as known, were founded in the Early Period—Piedras Negras 
in 9.8.15.0.0! and Naranjo and Altar de Sacrificios-El Pabellon in 9.10.0.0.0, 
just at the close of the period. 

A survey of the Maya culture area at the end of the Early Period shows 
only five centers of population in existence, although the distribution of these 
is such as to indicate that even at this early date the general region of the Old 
Empire had been fairly well defined, Copan being on the southeastern frontier, 
Uaxactun-Tikal and the newly founded Naranjo in the northern part, and 
Piedras Negras and Altar de Sacrificios-E] Pabell6on in the western part (see 
plate 1); and we may doubtless regard these cities, with the exception possibly 
of the last, as capitals in their respective sections, centers from which the 
occupation of the surrounding regions was effected. 





1 There isa possibility that the earliest date at Piedras Negras may be 60 or 70 years earlier than this, Stela 29 
possibly dating from as early as 9.5.15.0.0 or 9.5.5.0.0. This monument is fragmentary and its date has not been 
exactly deciphered as yet. 


OTHER CITIES OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 437 


During the Middle Period the occupation of the southern Maya field 
went steadily forward; Palenque (9.10.10.0.0), Yaxchilan (9.11.3.10.13), 
and Tzendales (9.13.0.0.0) were founded in the west; Yaxha (9.11.5.0.0) in 
the north; Itsimte (9.14.0.0.0) (?) inthe center, and Quirigua (9.14.13.4.17) 
in the south; and by the end of the period almost all the larger cities had 
probably been founded, except perhaps Seibal, which, on the basis of its 
monuments, appears to have been the last big city established in the south. 

Even Nakum, the earliest sure date at which is 9.17.0.0.0, was almost 
certainly founded as early as the Middle Period. This is a very large site 
belonging to Class 2 in the writer’s classification of the Old Empire cities 
(see p. 441), and in addition to its 3 sculptured stele has 12 plain ones.' 
Perhaps, as suggested for Tikal, the hotun-endings at Nakum were marked 
by plain stele which were painted, thus carrying the monumental sequence 
back 3 katuns before 9.17.0.0.0 and into the Middle Period. ‘Tozzer’s map’ 
shows that the city was extensive, and the number of temples there indicates 
a date of foundation considerably prior to 9.17.0.0.0. In figure 69, on the 
assumption that the 12 plain stele were either lahuntun or katun-markers 
like the carved ones, and that they marked the 12 katun and lahuntun- 
endings previous to 9.17.0.0.0, a possible foundation date of 9.11.0.0.0 is 
suggested for Nakum; or 9.14.0.0.0 if they marked the lahuntuns and katuns 
prior to 10.1.0.0.0, the latest date known there. 

One other city of the Middle Period requires some further comment, 
namely, Palenque. ‘This important site, perhaps better known than any 
other center of the Old Empire, with the possible exception of Copan, is the 
only one where the chronology and art criteria are apparently contradictory. 
Spinden maintains that on the basis of the architectural remains, as well as 
the stylistic criteria, particularly that presented by the stucco-work, Palen- 
que is very late, in all probability being occupied after 9.18.0.0.0.* On the 
other hand, the latest apparently contemporaneous date yet found there is 
9.13.0.0.0, on the tablets in the Temples of the Inscription, and the Foliated 
Cross, and on the stela in front of the Temple of the Cross; and, so far as the 
chronologic side is concerned, the evidence is indisputable that the tablets in 
these two temples were dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0, although the possibility 
remains that originally they may have been parts of earlier buildings than 
those in which they are now found. 

Spinden believes the stucco-work in particular is late, 7.¢., after 
g.18.0.0.0. It is especially unfortunate, therefore, that the only two Initial 
Series in stucco known at Palenque, one on the left pier of the facade of the 
Temple of the Sun and the other on the back wall of the outer chamber of the 
Temple of the Beau-relief, should both be almost entirely destroyed and 
impossible of decipherment. 

The writer believes it is possible, even probable, that Palenque may 
have been occupied down to g.18.0.0.0 or thereabouts, though hardly any 





1 Tozzer, 1913, pp. 162, 163. 2 [bid.,.plates 32 and 33. 3 Spinden, 1917¢, p. 177. 


438 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


later. Thelatest date in the whole western part of the southern Maya field 
is 9.18.5.0.0 on Stela 12 at Piedras Negras, and about this time, on the evi- 
dence of the dates at least, it is necessary to postulate that the whole western 
region, including Palenque, was abandoned. 

One other event of the Middle Period deserves especial mention because 
of the tremendous influence it was to exert a century and a half later. Some 
time during the closing katun of the Middle Period Chichen Itza was dis- 
covered, thus opening up to the Maya a vast new territory to the north, 
devoid of previous inhabitants! and admirably adapted to their peculiar 
type of civilization. 

With the beginning of the Great Period in 9.15.0.0.0 the horizon of 
Maya history broadens widely, and in the next century twice as many 
cities, in all parts of the southern Maya region, were founded as in the pre- 
vious four centuries. By this time the Maya were a rich and powerful peo- 
ple and the establishment of cities and the erection of temples and monu- 
ments had become, from the technical side at least, an easy matter, and the 
curve of civilization and cultural attainment surged upward. (See also 
figs. 68 and 70.) 

The first city to be founded in the Great Period, based on the monu- 
mental record, was either Seibal, 9.16.0.0.0, in the rich valley of the Pasién 
River in southern Peten, or La Honradez, in the extreme northeastern 
corner of Peten, possibly a little earlier. The earliest surely deciphered date 
at the latter is 9.17.0.0.0, but there are several other monuments there which 
on stylistic grounds are still earlier. 

After 9.17.0.0.0 the new sites follow each other in quick succession, El 
Cayo in 9.17.5.0.0 (?), Los Higos and Ixkun in 9.17.10.0.0, La Mar in 
9.17.15.0.0, and Cancuen and Aguas Calientes in 9.18.0.0.0, when the zenith 
appears to have been reached, more monuments having been found which 
record this last hotun-ending than any other during the Old Empire. (See 
Appendix VIII.) 

After 9.18.0.0.0 no cities appear to have been founded until the last 
group, Flores, Ucanal, and Benque Viejo in 10.1.0.0.0; indeed, there is a 
break in the monumental sequence of the Old Empire after 9.19.10.0.0, 
not a single monument having been discovered which dates from the 30 
years between 9.19.10.0.0 and 10.1.0.0.0.” 


' Mercer (1896, pp. 162-167), in an excellent study of the caves of Yucatan, during the course of which 29 were 
examined and 10 excavated, reaches the firm conclusion that Yucatan had never had an earlier occupation than 
that of the Maya: “But results more important than these had rewarded our close examination of the position 
and contents of the human rubbish heap everywhere present in the caves. Though this layer was the only culture- 
layer our digging had fairly proved at Oxkintok, Loltun, and Sabaka, and though we had often failed to reach rock 
bottom at other caverns, there was nowhere ground for supposing that deeper digging or blasting would have upset 
our inference. An earlier people visiting Yucatan under its present topographical conditions must needs have left 
their trace in the caves, and because the undisturbed earth beneath the culture-layer discovered always failed 
to show trace of any deeper, older, or more primitive human visitor, the conclusion was that no such earlier 
people had seen the region while its stony hills, its torrid plain, and its damp caves were as they now are.” 

2 Tt is a curious fact that, as important as the date 10.0.0.0.0 must have been to the Maya priests, the end of 
the cycle during which they attained such cultural brilliance, not one contemporaneous monument has been found 
dating therefrom. 


OTHER CITIES OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 439 


These last three cities could not have been occupied very long, since 
the last date recorded anywhere in the southern area, 10.2.0.0.0, is only 20 
years later than their earliest date, and doubtless even at the time of their 
foundation the movement which was emptying the Old Empire region of its 
inhabitants was already nearing its end. After 10.1.0.0.0 no more new sites 
were founded, and soon after 10.2.0.0.0 the few that had survived the 
general exodus up to this time were abandoned and the Old Empire was at 
an end. 

Much of the data upon which the foregoing conclusions are based are, 
of course, not only incomplete, but also of doubtful quality. Thus, for 
example, there are two important sections of the Old Empire area which 
have yet to be explored—the extreme northern part of Peten along the 
Mexican boundary and the western bank of the Usumacinta River from 
Tenosique southeast to Salinas de los Nueve Cerros and thence back to the 
base of the Cordillera, the latter comprising the northeastern quarter of the 
State of Chiapas, Mexico. 

The writer confidently believes a thorough exploration of these two 
densely forested and, in most parts, uninhabited regions will result in the 
location of new Maya cities and the discovery of new hieroglyphic texts, 
although it appears highly improbable that another city as large either as 
Copan or Tikal can still be hidden in either, or even one as large as the 
cities of Class 2 on page 441, since notice of such a site at one time or another 
would almost certainly have been brought out by some mahogany-cutter, 
chicle-bleeder, or even by Lacandon Indians who roam these forests. 

Again, it is obviously hazardous to assume that the earliest deciphered 
monument at a site is at the same time also the earliest one actually erected 
there, and similarly, that the latest deciphered monument is also the latest 
one which was erected there; and doubtless future discoveries will change 
some of the minor aspects of both figures 69 and 70. But the writer believes 
that in both these cases, 7. ¢., the discovery of new texts, as well as the future 
dating of known undeciphered ones, such new data will not affect the general 
features of these figures, and that the broad outlines of Old Empire history 
may safely be accepted as laid down here. 

Another objection to the data upon which the above conclusions are 
based is that the sculptured monuments are not always an exact criterion 
as to the lengths of the periods of occupation, the most striking example of 
this kind being at Nakum, where only 12 of its 15 stele, and these all late, 
are sculptured. This objection is perfectly valid, but the answer to it is 
that in the very few cases where it applies there are also found plain stele 
which may doubtless be assumed to have taken the place of the sculptured 
stele as the period-markers at such sites. 

Weighing all the evidence, the well-nigh universal custom of the Maya 
during the Old Empire to erect their monuments, and in some cases their 
temples as well, at the ends of even hotuns in the Long Count, the writer 
believes most of the data in figures 69 and 70 will be validated rather than 


440 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


controverted by such future discoveries, always admitting that new texts 
will undoubtedly be found from time to time which will introduce minor 
variations. 

The classification of the Old Empire cities into four groups, as given on 
page 441, based upon their size, monumental and architectural remains, and 
varying degrees of importance, is perhaps hazardous, since surveyed maps 
are lacking for all of them save only Tikal, Copan, Palenque, Nakum, and 
Quirigua. It is offered here, however, only by way of suggestion in answer 
to the oft-repeated question, what was the relative importance of the 
different cities of the Old Empire; and it should be noted in using it that save 
for Classes 1 and 4, where the classification is fairly obvious, the assignments 
suggested are only tentative and open to revision any time additional data 
are available. 

The real difficulty in any such a classification is the proper distribution 
of the cities in Classes 2 and 3, or indeed whether it would not be preferable 
to group these cities together in one class. The principal objection to the 
latter solution is that it involves the grouping together of such important 
sites as Yaxchilan and Nakum with such relatively unimportant sites as 
Yaxha and Ixkun. 

The problem is further complicated by the fact that, architecturally 
considered, Palenque, Yaxchilan, and Nakum are very important, while 
their monumental remains, especially those of the first and last, are rela- 
tively insignificant; whereas at Piedras Negras, Naranjo, and Quirigua we have 
the opposite condition, namely, important monumental sequences but rela- 
tively insignificant architectural remains. ‘The only escape from this latter 
dilemma, since we do not know which the ancient Maya esteemed the 
more—a handsome series of stele or an imposing assemblage of temples— 
would appear to be to give each an equal value and group them all together. 
Although this makes Class 2 as large as Class 3, its six cities are more 
nearly of a size, while at the same time the six cities of Class 3 all have about 
the same number of monuments. 


OLDVEMPIRE 


EARLY PERIOD MIDDLE PERIOD GREAT PERIOD 
aS 






























































SogSKD OD COO OO OKO Ob OOO OG KDeAaGeGGFC ORGAO oOo ooo oO Sos ooo oodo soo oO eos 6 oc oo SO rclome 
Sec OgogcdgGdGbGSbGdDPGddbGdSdGgGgdCERSGSOPGRagéEPGsGIdOgGeSddsedwtso6sS dO SGOSoOS So Oa So oC CO SG Silo Gld ore oes 
SSSScCDGDGOgSCgGSdGSSSOgGSCsSsS so SoOsSsSsgSOdgGOsSsSessgsosdgcosdsdsesdgdesgscos ogc Ss ooo ee 
LEG ESSER GER HSCHA NANG GH EKO COKHHHHOSSSH AHH AS HEHHYS ENN REG gssdddaa 
ETAT TTT TAT TTT TT ATT TTT TTT TTT 
| | : iW RnGaa | i 
ty it i | ' i 
[ || | | 
| i 
H a | | 
9 i 
8 | | HHH B i 
q IF ¥ 
6 | ii q 
5 at! i 
A i | | | 
3 a i 
2 vw | 
1 ; | 
VALI VaernennnnER ERT ERREBRAA BE 
aann My i a 8 

Fic. 70.— Diagram showing the chronologic distribution and frequency of all dated monuments in the Old Empire 


OTHER CITIES OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 441 


Class 4 is by no means exhaustive; it contains only those small sites 
where inscriptions have been found, and in the very nature of the case it 
could be expanded to many times its present size if all the smaller known 
ruin-groups were included therein. Within the individual classes the order 
of the cities is chronological. 


Crass I (2). Crass II (6). Crass III (6). Crass IV (21). 


Hakal. Piedras Negras. Uaxactun. Altar de Sac.—El Pab. 
Copan. Naranjo. Yaxha. Tzendales. 

Palenque. La Honradez. Chichen Itza. 

Yaxchilan. Seibal. Itsimte. 

Nakum. Ixkun. El Cayo. 

Quirigua. Undated inscriptions. La Mar. 

Ocosingo. Aguas Calientes. 

Cancuen. 
Ucanal. 
Benque Viejo. 
Flores. 
Quen Santo. 
Los Higos 
Undated inscriptions. 
Chunvis. 
FE] Encanto. 
San Jose de Motul. 
Rio Grande. 
Rio Amarillo. 
Chinikiha. 
El] Chicozapote. 
Xupa. 


The curve of the growth and expansion of the Maya civilization during 
the Old Empire, based upon the frequency of the dated monuments, is 
shown in figure 70. The abscisse of the curve are the successive hotuns of 
the Long Count from 8.14.0.0.0 to 10.3.0.0.0, shown by the vertical lines 
as in figure 68, every fourth line, corresponding to a katun-ending, being 
heavier. 

The ordinates of the curve are the number of times any given hotun- 
ending is recorded on different monuments. Monuments bearing dates 
other than hotun-endings, as, for example, 8.14.10.13.15 on Stela 9 at 
Uaxactun or 9.2.13.0.0 on Stela 3 at Tikal, have been plotted in this figure 
as dating from their current hotun-endings, 7. ¢., as 8.14.15.0.0 and 9.2.15.0.0 
for the above two stele respectively. The most notable features of the curve 
ates 

1. The practically stationary condition throughout the Early Period, perhaps 
due to the labors involved in conquering the new environment. 

2. The sudden rise just at the end of the Early Period, perhaps indicating 
that sufficient reserves had been accumulated to extend the sphere of occupation. 

3. The gradual rise from this point to the maxima in 9.17.0.0.0 and 9.18.0.0.0, 
at the height of the Great Period, indicating the normal growth and expansion of a 
people who had mastered the different problems presented by their environment. 


4. The absence of any stations on the curve from 9.19.15.0.0 to 10.0.15.0.0, 
inclusive, indicating the entire absence of monuments dating from these 5 hotuns. 


442 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


5. The sharp upward movement in 10.1.0.0.0, when no less than 8 different 


monuments were erected at 5 different sites. 
6. The final return to the base-line after 10.2.0.0.0, indicating the extinction 


of the Old Empire civilization.’ 
THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 


There remains to be considered but one further question, namely, the 
several hypotheses which have been advanced to account for the decline 
and fall of the Old Empire civilization. In discussing this important ques- 
tion, one of the most perplexing in the Maya field, the writer is obliged to 
admit at the outset that he is unable to offer any single hypothesis which 
by itself satisfactorily explains the unusual archeological data set forth 
in the preceding section—a sudden cessation of the monuments in the 
individual cities when each was at its cultural and esthetic apogee, but a 
gradual abandonment of the region as a whole, covering a period of about a 
century. Probably any social phenomenon as extensive and radical as that 
of the Maya exodus at the end of the Old Empire—a complete abandonment 
of a fairly large country which they had occupied for more than five cen- 
turies—may not be ascribed to any single cause, but rather to a complex of 
causes, which, operating together, finally brought about the end observed. 

Turning next to the consideration of the principal causes, which at one 
time or another have been suggested as being responsible for the extinction 
of the Old Empire civilization, the following seem to exhaust the list: 
earthquakes, civil or foreign wars, disease, social and political decay, cli- 
matic changes, and the exhaustion of the soil by the agricultural methods 
practised. 

Concerning the first or earthquake hypothesis, it appears to be the most 
improbable of all. It rests primarily upon the present ruined condition of the 
Old Empire cities, the fallen temples and palaces, and the overthrown and 
shattered monuments, and upon the prevalence of severe earthquakes in 
adjacent areas. The heavy earthquakes which so frequently visit the high- 
lands of Guatemala, and which only recently have destroyed the capital 
of that country for the third time in its history, do not extend with anything 
like the same severity to the low adjoining coast-plain, 7.e., the region 
occupied by the Old Empire civilization, and this agency may be said to be 
entirely inadequate to have caused all the ruin observed. 

Moreover, a personal examination of all the larger Maya cities known 
(all in Classes I, II, and III, on page 441 except Ocosingo) has convinced 
the writer that the luxuriant tropical vegetation in which every one is now 
buried, or was when first discovered, is alone responsible for the appalling 
destruction wrought. It should be remembered in this connection that all 
the Old Empire cities are situated in extremely fertile locations, probably 
originally selected for town-sites because of this very fact, and when first 


1 The two monuments recording the date 10.2.10.0.0, Steta 2 at Quen Santo, and the lintel from the Temple of 
the Initial Series at Chichen Itza, both lie without the region of the Old Empire. 


THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 443 


discovered they have always been found buried in a dense forest, their 
temples, pyramids, courts, and plazas overgrown with large trees. These 
trees have driven their roots deep into the masonry of the different buildings, 
literally prying the walls apart, causing the collapse of the roofs, the dis- 
memberment of the stairways, and the general destruction and reduction to 
mounds of both buildings and substructures. In the decay of the trees the 
monuments suffer. Ifa large tree in falling strikes a stela, as has frequently 
happened, it either breaks it into pieces, the usual case, or uproots it entire. 
The writer has examined several score of such cases, and in the great major- 
ity the monument is broken into at least two pieces by the blow, and is not 
infrequently badly shattered. 

If the overthrowal of the monuments had been caused by earthquakes, 
more would be simply uprooted and fewer broken than is actually the case, 
and even granting that some of the present destruction has been brought 
about by earthquakes, it appears unlikely that this agency alone would have 
been sufficient to have caused the Maya to completely abandon their cities, in 
the embellishment of which they had spent such prodigious efforts and where 
they had lived for four or five centuries, and would have forced them to 
seek new homes so far distant. Such an abandonment is contrary to human 
practices under similar conditions elsewhere in the world; indeed, no more 
distant from the southern Maya area than Guatemala itself, the capital of 
which has been thrice destroyed by earthquakes and thrice rebuilt, or El Sal- 
vador, the capital of which is said to have been destroyed sixteen times. Cities 
have been abandoned and possibly never rebuilt because of destruction by 
earthquakes, but whole countries never, and since the vegetation now 
covering the sites of the Maya cities is alone sufficient to account for their 
destruction, the writer believes the seismic hypothesis may be rejected. 

Joyce suggests that war waged against the Maya by tribes to the north- 
west brought about the extinction of the Old Empire civilization: 

“The Maya, to judge from the monuments, had enjoyed centuries of peace, 
and only in the northeast and north do we find reliefs which give any hint of war. 
But these may be significant and no doubt the decline of the old culture was due to 
pressure exercised by their northern neighbors, a pressure which had its origin in 
the steady southerly drift of tribes from regions considerably farther north, and 
which led to the occupation of the Mexican valley by the Nahua-speaking Toltec.””! 

This conclusion, as Joyce himself concedes, however, is counter to the 
bulk of the evidence from the Old Empire reliefs. At Copan and Quirigua, 
for example, the principal subject treated is a human figure, deity, ruler, or 
priest, magnificently garbed and holding in his hands emblems of civil or 
religious authority. At Palenque and Yaxchilan, religious ceremonies, 
sacrifices, self-torture, etc., are set forth; and at Tikal and many other cities, 
human or divine figures are again the subjects portrayed. 

At some of the northern cities the principal figures stand on the backs 
of crouching human-beings who have been identified as captives, and at 





1 Joyce, 1914, pp. 364, 365. 


444 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Piedras Negras captives bound with ropes and stripped of all clothing and 
ornaments appear huddled together before a ruler seated upon a throne 
with attendants standing on either side (Stela 12); or again, an elaborately 
dressed ruler with spear in hand and an attendant standing behind him 
faces 6 kneeling captives or warriors, also armed with spears (Lintel 2). 
These two monuments, and particularly Stela 12, have been interpreted, 
and probably correctly, as records of specific conquests, the captives repre- 
senting the fallen rulers, cities, or tribes with their corresponding name- 
glyphs engraved on their shoulders or thighs. But at best these are only 
sporadic cases, and an overwhelming majority of the Old Empire sculptures 
portray religious ceremonies, deities, rulers, and priests. 

Again, the lines of migration followed by the Nahua tribes south 
through Central America, the Mexican group in southwestern Chiapas, the 
Pipil in eastern Guatemala and western Salvador, the Niquiran in southern 
Nicaragua, and even the Sigua on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica would 
always appear to have been along the Pacific Coast-plain and never along the 
Atlantic side of the Continental Divide, south of which the Old Empire Maya 
never established themselves. That is, there is no archeological evidence 
that the two races ever came into contact, except possibly at Copan on the 
southeastern frontier and from Ocosingo northward in the extreme west. 

Moreover, the closing dates in the different Old Empire cities, as we have 
seen, themselves indicate that they were not abandoned simultaneously, 
but that the period of exodus covered more than a century, beginning in the 
extreme west (Palenque) and south (Copan) and moving eastward and 
northward, the last cities to be abandoned being the group in northeastern 
Peten—Flores, Ucanal, Benque Viejo, Naranjo, Nakum, Tikal, and Uaxac- 
tun—and Seibal in central Peten. If conquest by some other people had 
been the cause of their downfall, it would probably have been effected more 
rapidly, not dragging on for more than a century, and some record of it, 
in all likelihood, would have appeared on the monuments, particularly those 
of the northeastern cities, which were the last to be abandoned. 

It has been shown in the preceding section that after the close of the 
Old Empire in 10.2.0.0.0 the whole Peten region was abandoned, and prob- 
ably remained without inhabitants, entirely deserted by man, for more than 
800 years, until about the middle of the fifteenth century, when the north- 
eastern corner, the region around Lake Peten Itza, was colonized by the 
Itza moving south from Chichen Itza and out of Yucatan after the fall of 
Mayapan about 1447 A. D. 

There are no remains in all this region of any people or civilization other 
than the Maya—nothing earlier! and certainly nothing later, and if the 
Maya had been driven from their homes by foreign conquerors, it would 
appear inevitable that such conquerors would have left behind them some 
trace of their occupation of the country, however slight, in the monuments or 


1 As already noted on page 438, note 1, Mercer found similar conditions in the northern part of the region 
covered by the New Empire. 


THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 445 


architecture of the conquered cities; but such is not the case. On the con- 
trary, if war were the cause of the extinction of the Old Empire civilization, 
it would appear more likely to have been civil war, possibly the north against 
the south. Indeed, the possibility of internecine strife as one of the causes 
which may have contributed to the fall of the southern Maya cities can not 
be entirely overlooked. Eight centuries later, at the close of the New Empire, 
after the termination of the disastrous civil war which devastated the whole 
northern part of the Peninsula of Yucatan, all the Maya cities, those of the 
victors as well as of the vanquished, were abandoned outright, and new ones 
were founded. Thus the Tutul Xiu moved some 30 kilometers east of their 
old capital, Uxmal, and founded a new one at Mani; the Cocom, the losers 
in the struggle, were permitted to reestablish themselves at Sotuta, 60 kilo- 
meters southeast of Mayapan; and the Itza, not satisfied with the idea of 
founding a capital near their former homes, left the peninsula altogether and 
migrated southward into Peten, the region from which they had originally 
come, and reestablished themselves around Lake Peten Itza, as already 
noted. 

In the case of the Itza we may possibly have a parallel indicating what 
may have happened at the close of the Old Empire, and, as mentioned above, 
the factor of civil war probably can not be entirely overlooked as one of the 
contributory causes of the phenomenon we are seeking to explain; but so far 
as conquest by a foreign people is concerned, the weight of all the archeologi- 
cal evidence summarized below practically eliminates this hypothesis from 
the field of possibility: 


1. The long period, more than a century, judging by the closing dates on the 
monuments, during which the Old Empire cities were being abandoned. 

2. The complete absence of archzological remains other than those of the Maya 
in the region in question. 

3. The meager representation of war-like subjects on the monuments of the 
Old Empire. 

4. The fact that the lines of migration followed by the Nahua tribes south 
through Central America were exclusively on the Pacific Coast-plain, 7. ¢., south 
of the Continental Divide, and that except possibly at Copan on the southern 
frontier and along the western frontier in Chiapas and Tabasco the two races 
never seem to have come into contact during the Old Empire, at least a contact 
sufficiently violent to have expelled the Maya from their homes. 


The hypothesis of a disease, of a general pestilence, which practically 
depopulated the country, causing the survivors not only to abandon their 
plague-stricken cities but also to seek new homes in other lands, is so con- 
trary to historical precedent under similar conditions elsewhere among man- 
kind that it may probably be dismissed from consideration even as a remote 
possibility. Moreover, such a hypothesis, while fitting the fact of sudden 
extinction in the individual cities, can hardly be made to explain the 
gradual extinction over the area as a whole. To explain this latter fact 
by the disease hypothesis it is necessary to postulate either a long series 


446 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT. COPAN. 


of malignant epidemics extending over a century, striking first one city 
and then another scattered over a large region, or an endemic of suffi- 
cient virulency to have accomplished the same end, but working more 
slowly. The first would be almost if not quite unique in medical annals, 
and the second, even if granted, is hardly sufficient in itself to have brought 
about the complete evacuation of the entire region covered by the Old 
Empire civilization. And yet malaria of a pernicious type is endemic in 
this region to-day, and may have been during the Old Empire as well, 
although this point is not certain. It is generally believed that when the 
Old Empire civilization was at its height, the forests which now cover the 
country were down and the land cleared and under cultivation. If so, there 
would not have been nearly so many breeding-places as there are to-day for 
the myriad insects which now make the region so unhealthful, and the 
mosquito (Anopheles) in particular, must have been very much less abun- 
dant, and malaria, if present at all, correspondingly less prevalent. To-day, 
as the writer can testify, this disease is an ever-present source of sickness 
and debility among the scattered itinerant population of the Peten forests, 
mahogany-cutters, chicle-bleeders, and a few hundred Indians, and in order 
for the Old Empire civilization to have developed at all in such an unfavor- 
able environment, let alone to have achieved the most brilliant results in 
architecture and sculpture in ancient America, it is almost necessary to 
postulate the former non-existence of malaria, or at least its very limited 
prevalence. 

During the Old Empire, and particularly during the Great Period, when 
the greatest number of cities flourished and the country supported a really 
large population, possibly five hundred times larger than it is to-day, we 
must assume that the forests, particularly in the vicinity of the cities, were 
down, and that consequently malaria was very much less prevalent than it 
is at present. But let any condition arise which would bring back the forests, 
such as Huntington believes actually took place through supposed climatic 
changes during the fifth and sixth centuries after Christ, malaria would 
almost certainly have increased immediately and played an important part 
in discouraging the Maya with their old homes. Even if such climatic 
changes as those suggested by Huntington are not postulated, it is not 
improbable that malaria was endemic during the Old Empire as well as 
to-day, although less general, and it may have been one of the minor causes 
contributing to the great historic movement under investigation.! 








1The two most devastating diseases prevalent in the Old Empire region to-day are malaria and hook-worm, both 
caused by parasites, the former of the blood, the latter of the intestinal tract. Both General Gorgas of the Interna- 
tional Health Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Assistant Surgeon General Stiles of the Public Health Ser- 
.vice agree that the latter was not indigenous to America, but was introduced here from the West Coast of Africa 
with the slave trade. Neither, however, feels able to say as much of malaria. Gorgas recently told the writer 
he believes the place of origin of this disease to be still an open question and Stiles in a letter of November 12, 
1919, says: “I would not commit myself definitely to the question of the origin of malaria other than to say that 
it is a tropical and a subtropical disease.’ It would appear from these authorities that malaria with its serious 
sequalz of debilitation and permanent impairment of health, resulting in decreased productivity in every line, 
may have been the chief ailment with which the ancient Maya had to contend. 


THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 447 


Spinden believes the tendency toward flamboyancy, extravagancy of 
design, which became more and more pronounced as the Great Period 
advanced, is a sign of decadence in art, and that it must indicate a corre- 
sponding physical, moral, and political decadence in the life of the Maya of 
the time, sufficient in itself to have encompassed the downfall and extinction 
of the Old Empire cities: 


“The explanation of the eclipse of all that was finest in Maya civilization 
is not far to seek. Any long-continued period of communal brilliancy undermines 
morals and religion and saps the nerves and muscles of the people as a whole. 
Extravagance runs before decadence, and civil and foreign war frequently hasten 
the inevitable end.” 


The evidence upon which this opinion is based, however, scarcely 
warrants such a radical interpretation, the writer believes. While it is 
undeniably true that flamboyancy in decorative motives increased steadily 
during the Great Period, reaching on the last monuments at the different 
cities an almost bewildering ramification of detail, it does not follow that the 
Maya could not have carried this extravagancy of design even further, if 
they had had more time in which to do so; and so far as technique, treatment, 
and the like are concerned, the latest monument in each city is technically 
the best, showing no loss in skill and proficiency in technical processes up to 
the very end. 

Spinden argues, and perhaps correctly, that this admittedly decadent 
tendency which became the dominant characteristic of Maya art toward 
the close of the Great Period may be traced to a corresponding social deca- 
dence, involving all phases of the life of the time. But even admitting the 
existence of widespread intellectual exhaustion following hard upon the 
heels of a period of forced esthetic brilliancy, the writer can not bring him- 
self to believe that this alone would have been sufficient to have caused the 
abandonment not only of all the Old Empire cities, but also the evacuation 
of the entire southern region as well. Such a condition as Spinden sees 
might well result in the erection of fewer and less meritorious monuments, 
but it would not account for their sudden cessation, apparently at the 
highest point of technical if not esthetic development. Men do not leave 
their homes and travel long distances through dense forests to found new 
ones for such a trivial reason as this. Indeed, in summing up his opinion of 
this hypothesis, the writer believes that in order satisfactorily to account for 
the facts observed, a more coercive physical cause must be sought; in a word, 
that the factor which set the Maya moving a second time over a large area 
was an urgent material necessity with which they found themselves con- 
fronted, rather than moral and political decay, postulated solely upon 
esthetic exuberance evidenced by pronounced flamboyancy in decorative 
motives. 


1 Spinden, 1913, p. 198. 


448 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Perhaps the best known hypothesis seeking to explain the extinction of 
the Old Empire civilization is that suggested by Huntington, who believes 
a climatic change in the way of an increased annual rainfall, bringing disease 
and impossible living conditions in its wake, is the principal factor which led 
to the abandomnent of the southern cities. Huntington had previously 
advanced the general hypothesis of climatic change to account for similar 
archeological conditions, 7. ¢., the abandonment of regions formerly inten- 
sively occupied by man, in other parts of the world, notably in Turkestan,’ 
western China,” and Palestine,’ due in these regions to progressive drying-up 
of the water-supply, and later extended its application through the exact 
opposite of climatic conditions, 1. ¢., an excessive rainfall, to the Maya area. 
As applied to the Maya area‘ this hypothesis may be thus summarized: 

Due to a supposed shift of general climatic zones toward the Equator 
during the first millenium before Christ and persisting down to 450 after 
Christ, the present zone of subtropical dryness was pushed southward to the 
edge of the tropical zone of rains (7. ¢., the Maya area), especially in the 
winter. This change, postulated on data derived from the big trees of 
California (Sequoia washingtoniana) and involving there a period of increased 
rainfall, is supposed to have brought to the region of the Old Empire a more 
pronounced and longer dry season than it now enjoys, less precipitation 
during the rainy season, and a more stimulating climate, characterized by 
greater variability of temperature, particularly in the winter time. Under 
these latter climatic conditions Huntington believes much of the dense 
tropical forest which now covers this region and renders it so full of disease, 
particularly malaria, as noted above, would disappear and living conditions 
would be improved. In fine, he assumes that such favorable conditions 
actually did precede the rise of the Maya civilization during the first millen- 
nium before Christ,when they were probably developing their culture and 
graphic system to the point of recording it on stone, and that these condi- 
tions continued throughout the Early Period and the first half of the Middle 
Period, but with gradually increasing unfavorability, that is, increasing 
rainfall; until toward the close of the Middle Period, by 450 a. p., the cli- 
mate had deteriorated to such an extent that the rainfall was as heavy as it 
is to-day in this region, and was causing the Maya both trouble and concern. 

At this point, however, the pendulum swung the other way; the rainfall 
decreased, the climate improved, the forest grew less rapidly, it became 
easier to keep the cornfields from being smothered by a too luxuriant vege- 
tation—in short, living conditions which had been growing steadily worse 
for several centuries suddenly took a turn for the better; as Huntington 
says, the people took heart, and thus the Maya began the Great Period, the 
Golden Age of Maya sculpture, with increasingly favorable climatic condi- 
tions which continued for nearly a century until 540 a. p. 


1 Huntington, 1905. 2 [bid., 1907. 3 Tbid., 191. 
4 Ibid., 1913, pp. 467-487; 1bid., 1914, chapters XV-XVIII; tbid., 1915, pp. 239-243; ibid., 1917, pp. 150-164. 


THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 449 


In 540 A. D. (approximately 9.18.10.0.0 according to the writer’s corre- 
lation of Maya and Christian chronology), a return of the rainier conditions 
of the preceding century was experienced and building operations were 
again checked. This did not last long, however, and in the latter half of the 
century, after Copan had been abandoned, drier conditions returned for a 
brief period, during which time the last monuments in the Old Empire were 
erected (10.1.0.0.0 to 10.2.0.0.0). 

Finally, after the first decade of the seventh century, the climate rapidly 
became much worse even than it is to-day; the dry season became so short 
that the bushes could not be burned, and thus it became impossible to prac- 
tice the only system of agriculture with which the Maya were familiar, 7. ¢., 
felling the bush at the end of the rainy season and burning it when dry. 
Disease became more prevalent, the climate more enervating, and finally, in 
despair, the Maya abandoned the country and sought new homes elsewhere. 

Huntington, as mentioned above, bases his hypothesis upon data 
derived from the Sequoia washingtoniana of California, and finds his best 
agreements with the correlation of Maya and Christian chronology proposed 
by the writer (see Appendix IT). 

The principal objection to this hypothesis is that periods of increased 
rainfall in southern California may not have been accompanied by periods 
of diminished rainfall and more favorable agricultural and general living 
conditions in the region occupied by the Maya during the Old Empire. 

Huntington’s postulate, that the climatic changes, which seem fairly 
well established for southern California, were coincident with diametrically 
opposed climatic changes in the southern Maya field, 4,000 kilometers dis- 
tant to the southeast, is a very doubtful assumption, and one by no means 
established by his California data. Indeed, precisely here lies the weakness 
of his entire hypothesis, for if it could be proved that periods of increased 
rainfall in southern California were actually accompanied by corresponding 
periods of diminished rainfall in the southern Maya field, and to the extent 
which he claims, his whole argument would be very greatly strengthened, 
since the agreements between the chronologic data established by the Sequoia 
washingtoniana and the dates of the Old Empire cities in the writer’s cor- 
relation of Maya and Christian chronology are, to say the least, striking. 

The recent meteorological investigations of Arctowski, of Brooks, of 
Helland-Hansen and Nansen, of Hilderbrandsson, and of Penck, it must be 
admitted, tend somewhat to support Huntington’s basic assumption that 
opposite climatic conditions are frequently found simultaneously in regions 
no farther apart than those here under consideration. Says Hilderbrandsson 
in this connection: 

“Tn winter the course of the meteorological elements over the part of the ocean 
lying between Iceland and Norway agrees with that which occurs over the north 


of Europe, but is in opposition to the course of the same elements over the sub- 
tropical region, the Azores to the Mediterranean.” 


1 Hilderbrandsson, 1916, p. 228. 


450 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


These two regions are about 4,500 kilometers apart in round numbers, or 
about soo kilometers more than the big trees of California are from the region 
of the Old Empire. 

Penck, the leading German authority on climate, agrees with Hunting- 
ton, on independent lines of research, that the present zone of aridity in the 
Northern Hemisphere formerly lay much nearer the Equator, which, if so, 
would have brought to the region of the Old Empire a somewhat drier 
climate than it now enjoys: 

“All this leads us to assume that the area of extreme aridity in Africa once lay 
much nearer the Equator than it does to-day, exactly as was the casein both Americas, 
and guided again by the phenomena of the Great Basin, we may fix this period in 
the Ice Age. The Great Ice Age presents itself, then, neither . . . nor as a period 


of excessive humidity over the whole earth, but as a period during which the cli- 
matic belts were shifted into lower latitudes.’”! 


OLD EMPIRE NEW EMPIRE 
EARLY MIDDLE GREAT TRANSITIONAL 
PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD 


650 
700 


ST 


------------ ---------- ------------ ------=----1750 





Fic. 71.— Diagram showing supposed variation in rainfall in the Maya area from 500 B. Cc. to 1000 A. D., 
after Huntington. 


The striking agreements mentioned above between the climatic curve 
obtained from the Sequoia washingtoniana and the writer’s correlation of 
Maya and Christian chronology appear clearly in figure 71, which shows 
the variation in rainfall in California for 1,500 years, during the last 500 
years before Christ and the first millennium after Christ, as established by the 
varying thicknesses of the rings of 450 Sequoia washingtoniana.? Hunting- 
ton gives the following general explanation of this curve: 


1Penck, 1914, p. 290. Other recent investigations in this field will be found in the bibliography under the 
following titles: Arctowski, 1910-1913, vol. XLII, pp. 270-282, 481-495; vol. XLIv, pp. 598-606, 745-760; vol. xLv, 
pp. 117-131; Brooks, 1916, pp. 249-255; Helland-Hansen and Nansen, 1916, pp. 1-341; and Huntington, 1918, 
pp. 483-491. 

* Huntington, 1917, p. 158. 


THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 451 


“According to our hypothesis the high parts of the curve mean abundant 
rainfall in southern California, but diminished rainfall and a pronounced dry season 
in the Maya area. Therefore they are the favorable periods. The low shaded 
areas [the black sections, below the line ab in figure 71, the level of present pre- 
cipitation], on the contrary, indicate times of drought in California, but of abund- 
ant rain at all seasons in the Maya area, with consequent dense forests, difficult 
agriculture, overwhelming disease, and enervating damp heat at all times.” 


During the first five hundred years before Christ and down to the be- 
ginning of the third century after Christ, when it is necessary to assume 
the Maya were developing their peculiar culture and remarkable calendar 
and chronologic system, extremely favorable climatic conditions, denoted by 
the general height of the curve above the line ad in figure 71, seem to have 
prevailed between 14° and 18° north latitude, the region of the Old Empire 
civilization, according to Huntington’s hypothesis. 

It will be noted further, that beginning with the third century after 
Christ, a steady decline in the curve sets in, which continues with but few 
minor variations until the middle of the fifth century. That is to say, 
according to the writer’s correlation of Maya and Christian chronology, the 
climatic conditions during the Early and Middle Periods grew steadily worse, 
although up to the early part of the Middle Period they were still fairly good. 
By the middle of the fifth century, however, the annual rainfall had become 
as heavy as it is to-day in this region, a fact indicated by the curve having 
dropped to the horizontal line ad in figure 71, and living conditions, accord- 
ing to Huntington’s hypothesis, had become intolerable. At this point, 
however, the curve sweeps upward and so continues with few minor varia- 
tions for nearly a century, until 540 a. p., indicating a return of favorable 
climatic conditions to the southern Maya area, and in the writer’s correla- 
tion of the two chronologies, coinciding with the last katun of the Middle 
Period and the first two and a half katuns of the Great Period, the katuns 
of maximum sculptural and architectural activity. 

From 540 to 560 (approximately 9.18.10.0.0 to 9.19.10.0.0, according 
to the writer) the curve again makes a sudden drop to the unfavorable level 
of present conditions, and then rises rapidly between 560 and 610 (approxi- 
mately 9.19.10.0.0 to 10.2.0.0.0, according to the writer), only to drop as 
suddenly to new low levels after 610, indicating heavier annual rainfall and 
more unfavorable conditions than even to-day, which continued for more 
than two and a half centuries. And just here is perhaps the most satisfac- 
tory agreement between the dates on the monuments and Huntington's 
diagram. No two katuns of the Middle and Great Periods are represented 
by fewer monuments than the two between 9.19.0.0.0 and 10.1.0.0.0 (551 to 
590); indeed, there are only two monuments now known (Stela D at Nakum 
and Stela 32 at Naranjo) which date from this period. The beginning of 
this lacuna in the monumental sequence falls almost in the middle of Hunting- 
ton’s second minimum after the birth of Christ, and under his hypothesis is 





1 Huntington, 1917, p. 158. 


452 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


to be interpreted as indicating a falling-off in the erection of stele owing to 
the prevalence of extremely unfavorable climatic conditions. A number 
of monuments, however, were erected in 10.1.0.0.0 and 10.2.0.0.0 (591 to 610 
according to the writer), which Huntington would have us believe was due 
to a return of more favorable climatic conditions, evidenced by the contin- 
uous rise of the curve from 560 to 610. Finally comes the sudden cessation 
of all monuments in the Old Empire after 10.2.0.0.0 (610 A. D. according to 
the writer), evidenced by a drop of the curve to new low levels of unfavora- 
bility and its continuance there for the next two and a half centuries, during 
the first part of which period the Maya are known to have abandoned the 
southern cities, as Huntington believes, due to the prevalence of the worst 
climatic conditions they had ever experienced. 

In spite of these satisfactory, not to say almost startling, agreements, 
the writer feels unable to accept this hypothesis as the principal explanation 
why the Maya abandoned such a large region as that covered by the Old 
Empire, although admitting that climatic changes may have been partially 
responsible therefor. 

The principal objection to Huntington’s hypothesis, as already pointed 
out, is not his data on the variation of rainfall in southern California, which 
appear to be fairly well established by the varying thickness of the rings of 
the Sequoia washingtoniana, nor is it so much a question of possible inac- 
curacy in the writer’s correlation of Maya and Christian chronology, which 
now appears from all indications to be correct with a maximum margin of error 
of not more than one year (see Appendix II), but rather uncertainty as to the 
accuracy of his basic postulate that climatic changes in southern California 
were accompanied by and coincident with diametrically opposed changes 4,000 
kilometers distance to the southeast. This is a far-reaching and fundamental 
assumption, and even in spite of the apparently corroboratory results recently 
obtained by Penck, Arctowski, Helland-Hansen and Nansen, Hildebrands- 
son, and Brooks in this field, it seems safer to withhold unqualified accep- 
tance thereof until the laws governing climatic changes have been more 
thoroughly worked out than at present, and their nature and operation more 
clearly understood. 

There remains to be considered but one more hypothesis, which seeks 
to explain the extinction of the Old Empire civilization, namely, that sug- 
gested by Cook,' that the system of agriculture practiced by the Maya 
eventually reduced the soil to such a state of unproductivity that they were 
literally starved into moving elsewhere. He sums up his conclusions in the 
following words: 

“Apart from dangers of war or pestilence to which the ancient communities 
of Central America may have been exposed, their existence was definitely limited by 


methods of agriculture which denuded the country of its forests, and destroyed the 
fertility of the soil. Civilization is at an end when an agricultural country ceases 


1 Cook, 1909. 


THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 453 


to be adapted to agriculture. ‘To recognize these natural limitations of the primi- 
tive civilizations of Central America should make us more careful to appreciate 
and to correct the harmful tendencies of some of our own systems of agriculture.’”! 


Cook’s conclusions are based upon personal studies in the highlands of 
Guatemala, and in the State of Chiapas, Mexico, among the descendants 
of the Old Empire Maya, the Quiché, Cakchiquel, Tzutuhil, and other 
modern representatives of the Maya stock in this region, where the methods 
of agriculture in vogue have changed little if any since pre-Columbian times. 

The Maya method of agriculture, ancient as well as modern, may be 
briefly summarized as follows: cutting, burning, planting, and sometimes 
weeding. As soon as the rainy season is over a new piece of forest is cleared, 
usually in January or February, and the fallen trees and underbrush are 
allowed to dry under the fierce heat of the March and April sun. When 
sufficiently dry to burn readily, usually in March and not later than April, 
the clearing is burned. Throughout the Maya area, north as well as south, 
the skies in April are covered with a pall of smoke, the sun setting each night 
a ball of fiery red. It is the time of the mi/pa (cornfield) burning, just before 
the end of the dry season. 

After the first rains, usually during the first half of May, the corn is 
planted among the fallen, charred trees, some of which have not been entirely 
consumed. A sharpened fire-hardened stick is generally used, and the corn 
planted 5 to 7cm.deep. In some places weeding is practiced, in others not, 
the burning being deemed sufficient to retard the growth of weeds until 
after the corn has a good start. The harvest is usually not garnered at all. 
In August, when the corn has ripened, the ears are bent down and left hang- 
ing on the stalks to be gathered only as they are needed, in some cases being 
left on the stalks until the end of the dry season, when the last are picked and 
brought in. This method of harvesting is not so casual as it first appears, 
since the ears are much less subject to attack by insects, decay, etc., when 
left hanging on the stalks in the open air than when they are picked and 
stored in floorless thatched huts, where deterioration from all causes is more 
rapid. 

Whatever may have been the practice in ancient times, to-day the same 
field is not usually put under cultivation two successive seasons; but a new 
piece of forest is cleared and the same process repeated. ‘This is done 
because the second season’s crop from the same field is from 40 to 50 per cent. 
less than the first season’s yield, and the natives, as a rule, prefer the larger 
return even at the cost of the greater labor involved in clearing new pieces 
of the forest each year. 

After lying fallow from 2 to 5 years, and in some places even 7 years, 
sufficient trees and bushes have grown up in a clearing to permit its being 
put under cultivation again, and then the same process is repeated and the 
cycle of milpa rotation is complete. But each time the same clearing is 





1 Cook, 1909, p. 23. 


454 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


burned, more and more of its humus soil is destroyed by the fire, and it 
requires longer and longer intervals of time for the woody growth upon 
which such a system of agriculture depends to return. After each successive 
burning more and more coarse grass grows up, and fewer and fewer trees 
and bushes, until finally nothing but coarse grass will grow and agriculture 
as practiced by the Maya is no longer possible. Cook describes this process 
in the highlands of Guatemala as follows: 

“The usual system of corn culture involves the repeated burning off of the 
weedy growth and a resulting exposure of the soil. ‘This causes a gradual deterior- 
ation of the crops of corn and a slower renewal of the woody vegetation. New 
clearings in the forest are soon covered again with bushes, and can be cut, burned, 
and planted again within a year or two. With each cutting the interval has to be 
lengthened, until finally the land becomes thoroughly occupied by coarse grasses 
which are not killed by fire. The Indians can then make no further use of the land 
for agricultural purposes.” 

This method of agriculture, he goes on to say, has been carried in the 
highlands of Guatemala, at San Pedro Carcha near Coban, for example, to 
the point where the barren grassy zone is of such an extent that the Indians 
plant their mi/pas in the Cajabon district, 80 kilometers distant, and carry 
the crop home on their backs. 

As applied to the Old Empire, such a system of agriculture would have 
required a vast extent of territory to have supported the large population 
which formerly occupied this region, and if this hypothesis is correct, per- 
haps we are to imagine the ancient inhabitants of Copan, Tikal, and the 
other southern Maya cities as being driven farther and farther from their 
homes in order to find suitable forested regions in which to make the clear- 
ings for their mi/pas. 

Such a system of agriculture, if pursued long enough, would eventually 
have exhausted all the available forest lands within practicable carrying 
distances of the centers of population, and with grassy savannas stretching 
far out on every side replacing formerly forested regions; as Cook says: 
“civilization is at an end when an agricultural country ceases to be adapted 
to agriculture.” 

This hypothesis appeals to the writer personally more than any of the 
others described. ‘To begin with, it best explains the progressive abandon- 
ment of the Old Empire cities, which we have seen took place not all at once, 
but scattered over a period of about a century. This replacing of the forests 
by grassy savannas, and the end of cultivability so far as the Maya 
agricultural methods were concerned, must have come about gradually, 
reaching really acute stages at the different cities at different times, depend- 
ing upon such variable factors as their relative sizes and ages, and the 
general fertility of their surrounding regions. 

Thus the point at which complete abandonment and migration else- 
where came to be generally recognized as the only remaining solution for 


1 Cook, 1909, p. II. 


THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 455 


their desperate economic situation must in the very nature of the case have 
been reached at a different time at each city, giving rise to different closing 
dates in each, the extremes possibly covering a century, and thus conform- 
ing better than any of the other hypotheses with the chronological data 
actually found. 

This hypothesis also explains the greater salubrity and healthfulness 
of the climate in the southern Maya field during the Old Empire than at 
present, upon which Huntington lays such stress. For with the forest 
cleared from the immediate vicinities of the cities and the surrounding 
country under cultivation, less standing water would have collected, and the 
malarial mosquito would have occurred in far less abundance than in these 
same regions to-day, making the living conditions far more healthful than 
they are now. 

The writer has stated that every Old Empire city with which he is 
familiar is, or was when first discovered, covered with a luxuriant vegeta- 
tion, a dense tropical forest. Cook offers convincing evidence, both botanical 
and zoological, tending to show that these forests are not original primeval 
forests, but are examples of reforestation over previously cleared areas. 


“Reforestation can be traced through a succession of temporary types of 
vegetation, such as pines, oaks, Curatella, Acrocomia, Cecropia, Castilla, and 
Attalea. These are abundant in regions undergoing reforestation, but are ex- 
tremely rare in virgin forests or in those sufficiently old for tropical hardwood trees 
to have grown to maturity and occupied the land, along with their attendant hosts 
of epiphytes and shade-tolerant undergrowth. It thus becomes evident that many 
of the existing forests are not permanent or primeval, but show the intermediate 
stages of a process of reforestation which probably requires several centuries to 
reach a stable condition. ... . 

“Central America is the home of many species of the Chamzdorea, and other 
small palms which live among the undergrowth in the shady depths of the forests. 
Nevertheless many localities affording conditions apparently suitable for these 
palms are without any representatives of the group. The undergrowth palms re- 
main abundant only in regions which have not been completely deforested for 
agricultural purposes, and especially in districts too mountainous and broken for 
agricultural use.” 


His zoological evidence on this point is equally satisfactory: 


“Localities which contain remnants of ancient forests can be recognized by 
the presence of complete faunas of humus-inhabiting forest animals, such as the 
millipeds and centipeds, and some of the lower orders of insects and arachnids. In 
districts which are frequently cleared by cutting and burning many of the humus- 
inhabiting groups are exterminated. Even if they escape the fire they are unable 
to resist the exposure to the heat, sunlight, and dryness of cultivated lands. As 
long as the surface soil retains its humus and remains loose and pervious to water 
some of the smaller subterranean forms will persist, but when denudation is com- 
plete, or when the soil becomes sticky and impervious the humus-inhabiting types 
entirely disappear, as in many of the tenacious ‘gumbo’ soils of the Texas prairies. 


i alacant eS I TB ll AE ot a a CE Soll ea 
1 Cook, 1909, pp. 12, 13. 


456 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


“Many forested places in Central America, which now afford conditions 
favorable for these humus-loving animals, are occupied by small and incomplete 
faunas. This shows that the period of reforestation has not been long enough 
to permit these sedentary, slow-moving creatures to spread again over the reforested 
areas. ‘Thus in the valley of Ocosingo [an old Empire city, see plate 1] in southern 
Mexico are many such tracts of new forest in which the humus fauna is still very 
poorly represented.” 

Cook’s suggestion that many of the Central American forests are of 
recent growth was corroborated by Whitford’s investigations in the Motagua 
Valley in June 1919. 

Under Cook’s hypothesis we are to conceive the Maya as founding 
their first cities in northern Peten in the midst of a vast primeval tropical 
forest, and as gradually felling this forest in the vicinities of their settlements 
and putting the cleared lands under cultivation. 

Later, penetrating southward through the Peten forest, some of the 
Maya eventually reached Copan and repeated this same process of clearing 
and cultivating there. Still later, other cities were founded, and gradually 
the whole region covered by the Old Empire was brought under intensive 
occupation. 

Perhaps as early as the Middle Period, judging from certain archeologi- 
cal evidence to be presented shortly, there began to be concern over the 
economic condition, the increasing difficulties in the way of securing ade- 
quate supplies of corn, the great Maya staple. As early as the Middle 
Period, if Cook’s hypothesis be correct, the increasing distances to which 
the people bad to go to find suitable land for their mz/pas, especially around 
the older cities, where the zones of grassy savannas had become the largest, 
must already have occasioned the rulers and priestly caste considerable 
anxiety. But before the end of another century, 7.¢., in the Great Period, 
the situation must have become so acute as to have caused general dissatis- 
faction with, if not indeed actual distrust of, deities, rulers, and priests who 
could permit such a condition to continue unchecked. 

The writer imagines many of the religious ceremonies of the time must 
have been specially devised for meeting this grave national crisis, and for 
seeking the aid of their deities, particularly those of fructification and fer- 
tility, to avert the threatened extinction of the food-supply, which was 
drawing ever nearer and nearer. 

That no solution for this urgent national economic problem was found 
would appear to be indicated by the fact that from 9.18.0.0.0 on, one by one 
the southern cities were abandoned; at least no more monuments were 
erected in any one of them after 10.2.0.0.0, and indeed, a few of them— 
Palenque, Altar de Sacrificios, and Itsimte for example—had possibly been 
abandoned much earlier. (See fig. 69.) 

The earliest abandonments would naturally have taken place at the 
oldest cities, or those where the total area available for cultivation had not 








1 Cook, 1909, p. 14. 


THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 457 


been large in the first place. Thus, under Cook’s hypothesis, it is not sur- 
prising to find that Copan was one of the first of the larger cities to have been 
abandoned, 9.18.10.0.0 being the last contemporaneous date found there. 
Not only was it one of the very oldest of the cities, but also it was located in 
a small valley where the area available for cultivation was comparatively 
restricted. 

Piedras Negras, located in a small semicircular flat surrounded by hills 
on one side and the Usumacinta River on the other, appears to have been 
abandoned about a hotun earlier, 1.¢., 9.18.5.0.0, and Yaxchilan, on the 
opposite (west) bank of the same river, in a similar location higher up, about 
the same time, 9.18.3.1.5. The closing dates at Quirigua and Uaxactun, 
located in the midst of fairly broad plains, are the same, namely, 9.19.0.0.0, 
and that at Naranjo, similarly located, is only 10 years later, 7. ¢., 9.19.10.0.0. 
Thirty years later, in 10.1.0.0.0, we get the closing dates at Benque Viejo, 
Ucanal, and Nakum, all in the northeastern corner of Peten, and 20 years 
later, in 10.2.0.0.0, the last dates of the Old Empire at Flores, Tikal, and 
Seibal, the last two being located in the midst of very large plains, the for- 
mer in the northeastern section of Peten, and the latter in the rich valley of 
the Pasion River, 150 kilometers farther south. 

Probably not long after 10.2.0.0.0 the last of the Maya moved out of the 
Peten region, some going north into Yucatan and others south into the high- 
lands of Guatemala, and the cities of the Old Empire were left deserted, to be 
reclaimed eventually by the same tropical forest from which they had 
originally been carved. Happily we are not without direct archeological 
evidence as to the two-fold direction of this Mayan exodus which com- 
pletely depopulated the Old Empire, the nature of which we will now pro- 
ceed to examine. 

To begin with, as early as the Middle Period, 1n 9.13.0.0.0 or 9.14.0.0.0 
(according to the writer’s correlation of Maya and Christian chronology), 
we have documentary evidence of the discovery of the region lying to the 
north of the Old Empire, z.¢., the Peninsula of Yucatan. Three of the five 
chronicles in the Books of Chilan Balam, those from the Mani and Tizimin 
manuscripts, and the first chronicle in the Chumayel manuscript, record 
the discovery of the Province of Ziyancaan or Bakhalal' in 9.13.0.0.0 or 
9.14.0.0.0. The Mani manuscript describes this event in the following 
words: 

“Then [9.14.0.0.0] took place the discovery of the Province of Ziyancaan or 
Bakhalal; 4 Ahau [i. ¢., 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax], 2 Ahau [1. ¢., 9.16.0.0.0 2 Ahau 
13 Tzec], 13 Ahau [1. ¢., 9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhul, three score years they ruled 


Ziyancaan when they descended here; in these years that they ruled Bakhalal, 
it occurred then that Chichen Itza was discovered.’ 





1 Brinton (1882, p. 124) gives the following etymology for these two names: Bakhalal “cane-brakes,” halal 
the cane and bak roll or inclosure, possibly referring to the cane-brakes around the shores of the lagoon of this 
name in the southeastern part of the peninsula; and Ziyancaan, “‘the birth of the sky” ziyan, birth and caen, sky. 
Brinton believes the latter is a picturesque allusion to the view from the seashore nearby, where the sky appears 
to rise from out of the water. 2 Ibid., pp. 95, 96, 100, and tot. 


458 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The Tizimin manuscript places this event 20 years earlier: 


“8 Ahau [7. ¢., 9.13.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Uo] it occurred that Chichen Itza was 
learned about; the discovery of Ziyancan took place.’” 


The Chumayel Manuscript agrees with the Mani text as to the date: 


“In 6 Ahau [i. ¢., 9.14.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan] took place the discovery of 
Chichen Itza.’”? 


Let us next ascertain the location of the Province of Ziyancaan or 
Bakhalal. The former name has not survived as that of any known locality 
in the Maya area at the present time, but Bacalar, the Hispanicized form 
of the Maya Bakhalal, is the name of the large lagoon in the southeastern 
part of the peninsula, some 80 kilometers northwest of Santa Rita Corozal, 
British Honduras. (See plate 1.) This is the first place-name mentioned in 
the Books of Chilan Balam which still attaches to a definite geographical 
locality; and a glance at plate 1 will show that the region west of Lake 
Bacalar, 1. ¢., the Province of Bakhalal, lies directly in the path of a migra- 
tion from the northeastern corner of Peten, where we have seen the Old 
Empire Maya survived the latest at Uaxactun, Nakum, Ucanal, and Benque 
Viejo (10.1.0.0.0) and Tikal and Flores (10.2.0.0.0) to Chichen Itza, where we 
will find them dedicating a temple as early as 10.2.10.0.0, only to years later 
than the closing dates in the last cities of the Peten region. 

The Peabody Museum Central American Expedition of 1912, under 
Merwin, explored this region, and discovered a number of important new 
sites, Rio Beque, Ramonal, and Porvenir, and although no inscriptions 
were found at any of them, they probably belong to the Transitional Period 
of the New Empire, 10.6.0.0.0 to I1.1.0.0.0.3 

The purely archeological evidence is fully as satisfactory. In 1900, 
Thompson found at Chichen Itza, in that part of the city called Old Chichen 
Itza, a lintel with the Initial Series 10.2.9.1.9 inscribed on its under side, 
which was assumed to have been its contemporaneous date. In 1918, 
however, the writer deciphered on the front of this lintel the lahuntun-ending 
10.2.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Chen, which conforms with the usual practice of dedi- 
cating monuments, temples, etc., at even hotun-endings and may conse- 
quently be regarded as its contemporaneous date, being in fact less than a 
year later (331 days) than the Initial Series. Now, this date is not only the 
earliest contemporaneous date known at Chichen Itza, but also throughout 
the New Empire, and it is, moreover, only 1 lahuntun later than the closing 
dates of Tikal (Stela 11), Flores (Stela 1), and Seibal (Stela 1). Thus, on the 
chronological side, it becomes evident that the final abandonment of the 
Old Empire was roughly coincident with the growth of the New Empire, and 
it is even possible that the rise of the latter may have been partially responsi- 
ble for the fall of the former. 


1 Brinton, 1882, pp. 138, 144. 2 [bid., pp. 153, 158. 
3 Morley, 19174, pp. 140, 146. The writer understands this important material is now in course of publication. 


THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 459 


This colonization of Yucatan from the southeast agrees, moreover, with 
a tradition gathered by Father Lizana, who wrote as early as 1601: 


“They [the first Spanish priests] knew that the natives came, a part from the 
east [the original colonization of the country here in question], a part from the west. 
So in their old language they call the east by another name than which they use 
to-day. Now they call the east, LiKin, which amounts to saying the place from 
which the sun rises upon us. And the west they call ChiKin, which means the 
fall or the end of the sun, or rather, where it hides itself in relation to us. But in 
old times they called the east, ‘Cenial, The Little Descent,’ and the west, ‘Nohenial, 
The Great Descent,’ (the former) referring to the few people who came on the one 
side, and (the latter) to the great multitude who came on the other, whoever they 
may have been.” 


The former, the Little Descent, doubtless refers to the comparatively 
few people who first settled at Chichen Itza arriving from the southeast, and 
the latter probably refers to a more general movement into Yucatan, the 
Great Descent, from the southwest, Tabasco (?), which seems to have taken 
place during the tenth century.’ 

It was stated on page 457 that the migration which depopulated the 
region of the Old Empire was two-fold in direction; that in addition to the 
Maya who moved northward and colonized the peninsula of Yucatan, others 
moved southward and into the highlands of Guatemala, and later became the 
Quiché, Cakchiquel, Tzutuhil, and other related Maya tribes of historic times. 

The only dates in the Maya hieroglyphic writing known from this 
latter region are the two Initial Series on the Quen Santo (Sacchana) stele 
found by Seler in 1895 at the Hacienda of Sacchana, in the State of Chiapas, 
Mexico, but which he states had been brought thither from the neighboring 
ruins of Quen Santo in the Department of Huehuetenango, Guatemala.’ 
(See plate 1.) The dates of these two monuments are 10.2.5.0.0 (Stela 1) 
and 10.2.10.0.0 (Stela 2), the latter being exactly the same date as that on the 
Chichen Itza lintel. 

Here, indeed, is an interesting archeological condition, two monuments 
600 kilometers apart, both without the territory occupied by the Maya dur- 
ing the Old Empire and both recording precisely the same date, which date is 
only ro tuns later than the latest closing dates in Seibal and Tikal, the nearest 
large Old Empire cities in each case; and therefore if Yucatan (Chichen Itza) 
was colonized from cities in the northeastern part of Peten, such as Tikal, 
Uaxactun, Nakum, Naranjo, and La Honradez, for example, the highlands of 
Guatemala (Quen Santo) would appear to have been colonized from cities 
in the southern part of Peten on the upper reaches of the Pasion, Chixoy, and 
Lacantun Rivers, such as Seibal, Cancuen, Aguas Calientes, Altar de 
Sacrificios, Ocosingo, and Tzendales. (See plate 1.) 





1 Lizana, 1893, pp. 35 4: ' ae 4.4 

2Landa (1881, pp. 74, 75) mentions great numbers of Maya-speaking people immigrating into Yucatan from 
the south about this time, which he conjectures must have come from Chiapa, “because many words and com- 
positions of the verbs are the same in Chiapa and in Yucatan.” 


3 Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 11, pp. 251, 252. 


460 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


We are now in possession of the most important archeological and docu- 
mentary evidence bearing upon the problem of the extinction of the Old 
Empire civilization and have reviewed the principal hypotheses seeking to 
explain the reasons therefor. ‘The writer wishes in a few closing words to 
outline what appears to him to be the best explanation of the facts observed, 
admitting, at the same time, that the evidence is as yet too insufficient to 
warrant final conclusions. 

Probably as early as the Middle Period, the increasing difficulties of the 
agricultural situation, 7. ¢., the farther and farther from their homes they 
were obliged to go in order to find suitable new land for cultivation, coupled 
with the deterioration of the cleared areas nearer the cities, had already 
begun to prove burdensome. This must have been especially true of the 
older and larger cities like Copan and Tikal, which had been occupied not 
only for longer periods but also by larger numbers of people; also, it is 
possible there may have been increasingly unfavorable climatic conditions. 

About the same time, according to the documentary evidence (the 
Books of Chilan Balam), and possibly because of this very fact, the region 
to the north of the Old Empire, the Province of Ziyancaan Bakhalal was dis- 
covered. This region is only 100 to 150 kilometers north of La Honradez, 
the northeasternmost Old Empire city now known (see plate 1), and 
colonists pushing out either from there or from one of the other cities of this 
region in search of new agricultural lands, owing to the increasing deteriora- 
tion of the lands nearer home, discovered Lake Bacalar, 7. ¢., the Province 
of Ziyancaan Bakhalal, in 9.13.0.0.0 or 9.14.0.0.0. The water of the lake was 
sweet, the country to the west fertile, and gradually the new region became 
colonized. 

While they were at Bakhalal, 60 years according to the Mani manu- 
script (from 9.14.0.0.0 to 9.17.0.0.0 according to the writer), in the words of 
the native chronicles, “it occurred then that Chichen Itza was discovered.” 

Possibly hunting or exploring parties pushing still farther north from 
Bakhalal in search of new lands discovered the two great natural wells or 
cenotes at Chichen Itza, something less than 200 kilometers farther north, 
and because of this abundance of sweet water, all the more remarkable for 
being in such a parched and generally waterless country as the whole 
northern half of the Yucatan Peninsula is, they settled there. 

It is not to be supposed that these discoveries of new fertile lands far to 
the north at first attracted general attention in the Old Empire cities, but 
later, toward the middle of the Great Period after 9.18.0.0.0, when the writer 
believes the economic situation may have begun to become menacing, peo- 
ple’s minds, particularly in the northern Peten cities, turned more and more 
toward these new lands, where living conditions were reported to be so easy. 

We may probably imagine the priesthood as opposed to the exodus 
already under way, because of its heavy investment in permanent build- 
ings, temples, and dwellings, and the rich monumental series, particu- 


THE FALL OF THE OLD EMPIRE. 461 


larly in the larger cities; but during the last four katuns of the Great Period 
from 9.18.0.0.0 to 10.2.0.0.0, when we get the last dates, there was probably 
a continuous movement of the people both to the north and to the south, a 
great outpouring from the Old Empire cities in both directions. 

Although we lack documentary evidence for this migration to the 
south, unless indeed the Popol Vuh or Sacred Book of the Quiché? and the 
Annals of the Cakchiquels* refer to an earlier period than now appears 
probable, there remains the indisputable linguistic fact that the Indians of 
the highlands of Guatemala to-day still speak dialects of the mother Maya 
tongue, morphologically probably no more distant one from another than 
the different branches of the Romance linguistic group—modern French, 
Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian. And to this must be added the direct 
archeological evidence of the Quen Santo stele, not more than 200 kilo- 
meters distant from Seibal in an air-line and only to years later than Stela 
I at that site chronologically, and finally a large body of ceramic material 
showing many Old Empire designs from all over the adjacent parts of the 
highlands of Guatemala. 

After 10.2.0.0.0 the region covered by the Old Empire was entirely 
abandoned, not to be reoccupied for another eight centuries, until the 
collapse of the New Empire about 1447, again set the Maya wandering 
over a large area in search of new homes for the third time within a period of 
1,500 years. 

Probably such a large movement of people as that of the Maya from 
the Old Empire region is not to be explained by any single cause, and possi- 
bly more than one of the hypotheses described may have contributed to the 
final result. 

The writer is well aware that the time has not yet come when general 
problems in the Maya field can be definitely settled. Not only is the evi- 
dence still incomplete, but also the interpretation of the data at hand is in 
some cases open to doubt and revision. Thus, for example, such a problem 
as the probable cause or causes which brought about the fall and extinction 
of the Old Empire civilization is incapable of exact solution in the present 
state of knowledge, too many factors being uncertain or even unknown. 
The hypotheses described, on the other hand, cover in their range the differ- 
ent causes which have been variously suggested to account for the archeo- 
logical fact, now generally recognized and already several times stated here, 
namely, the sudden cessation of the monumental series in the individual 
cities, but the gradual cessation over the area of the Old Empire as a whole. 








1 A similar situation arose in Guatemala after the great earthquake of 1773, which almost completely destroyed 
the capital of that country. The civil and military authorities were in favor of removing the seat of government to 
another valley, 25 kilometers farther east, to the present site of the capital. This step, however, was strongly 
opposed by the Church, because of its heavy property-holdings and investment, 43 large churches, monasteries, and 
convents alone, to say nothing of the many smaller buildings and elaborate equipment with which all were provided. 
Indeed, it was not until 3 years later, in 1776, that the new capital was formerly established in its present location, 
and the old capital, Antigua Guatemala, has continued to be occupied down to the present day. 

2Brasseur de Bourbourg, 1861. 3 Brinton, 1885. 


462 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Always admitting the possibility of an unknown factor in the situation, 
it appears to the writer that some, at least, of the several hypotheses sug- 
gested in the foregoing pages must have played an important part in pre- 
cipitating the exodus which the archeological evidence demands; and of 
these, Cook’s suggestion of an agricultural collapse appears to be the most 
probable. Possibly operating singly, but more probably working with other 
stimuli, such as climatic changes, fear, and superstition (the two last always 
potent forces among primitive peoples), bringing in their train attendant dis- 
ease, social unrest, and loss of confidence in themselves, their rulers, and their 
deities, these several factors may finally have brought about such an intol- 
erable condition toward the close of the Great Period that abandonment of 
the whole region ultimately came to be generally accepted as the only solu- 
tion for their extremity. 

And here we may leave the Maya. Their history in their new homes 
to the north and south, their brilliant cultural recovery and renaissance, 
particularly in Yucatan in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, 
the Spanish Conquest of the southern Maya under Pedro de Alvarado in 
1524 and of the northern Maya under Francisco Montejo the younger in 
1541, and the final extinction of the last remnant of the Maya civilization 
around Lake Peten Itza by Martin de Ursta in 1697, are all chapters of 
another story which lie without the province of the present investigation, 
and which must await another occasion for adequate presentation. 


APPENDIX I. 


A PETROGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF THE MATERIAL OF THE COPAN 
MONUMENTS. 


Frep. FE. Wricur. 


Small specimens from three monuments, Stele D and 3 and Altar U, were 
examined and found to be essentially the same in general appearance and type. 
In each one of these rock-masses, small inclusions of a denser, harder rock occur 
which differ from the host only in the fact that they are more indurated and contain 
more quartz. ‘The rocks as a group are so highly altered that their original char- 
acters are difficult to decipher with certainty. They are evidently of tuffaceous 
origin and range in composition from dacites to andesites high in silica. The lack 
of ferromagnesian minerals, such as amphiboles, pyroxenes, and micas, is note- 
worthy. In the ground-mass, dusty areas, more or less rhombic in outline, may 
be seen here and there and may represent former amphiboles; but no definite proof 
was obtained of the presence of any one of the ferromagnesian minerals in the 
original rock-mass. 

In general appearance the specimens are dull, porous, fine-grained rocks, pale 
green and yellow-green 1 in color, mottled here and there with colored angular areas, 
such as abound in altered tuffaceous rocks. The clastic texture is more clearly 
marked in the dark-colored inclusions than in the inclosing rock-mass. At first 
glance these inclusions appear to be fresh, vitreous rocks containing phenocrysts 
of clear, glassy plagioclase and quartz; but on closer inspection with a magnifying 
glass, and especially in the thin section under the microscope, they are seen to be 
clastic in nature and not essentially different from the host, except for the greater 
abundance of secondary quartz. In these indurated fragments the sharply curved 
intersections and interstitial spaces between the glass fragments of the original tuff 
are well preserved and give to the rock an unusual and characteristic appearance. 
Many of the angular and rounded cavities are lined with a white to pale green crust 
of soft material which under the microscope is cryptocrystalline to microcrystal- 
line, and weakly birefracting, with an average refringence of about 1.535. Many 
of the cavities contain, in addition, secondary quartz. The spherical shape of some 
of the cavities, I to 2 mm. in diameter, suggests bubbles in an original glassy lava. 
In the inclusions these gashes and other cavities are common and demonstrate 
the tuffaceous origin of the rock. In the less indurated rocks the cavities are still 
present, but they are not so apparent in the hand specimen because of the generally 
altered, dull condition of the samples, which has obliterated all contrasts. 

Scattered through each specimen are clear, glassy crystals of plagioclase feld- 
spar measuring up to 3 mm. in diameter. These crystals are developed as stocky 
prisms elongated along the axis oo1:010; tabular development after the side pina- 
coid (o10) is less common. ‘The forms feeaned on the crystals are: (oor), (010), 
(110), (110), 101). Cleavage after oo1 is well developed. The feldspar sections 
show slight zonal structure and average in composition an albite-oligoclase of the 
composition AbsAn;. Fine albite twinning lamella are common; Karlsbad twin- 
ning lamella were observed in a few of the feldspar sections. Many of the feldspar 
crystals are irregular in shape and are evidently fragments of fractured crystals. 
Quartz grains are less abundant than the feldspars. They occur in water-clear 

463 


464 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


grains, generally rounded in shape. Many of the primary quartz grains are cor- 
roded and embayed. Inclusions of long, needle- shaped crystals of high refringence 
were observed in several of the quartz sections. 

A brown weathering crust was observed on one of the specimens. The junc- 
tion between this crust and the adjacent interior is sharply defined; the weathered 
shell is more or less banded; but even in this shell the plagioclase feldspar still 
preserves its clear, glassy character. 

Under the microscope some of the feldspar sections are more or less regular in 
shape, but many are irregular and corroded. They are embedded in a much altered 
matrix which is not easy to decipher in all its details. In each thin section angular, 
irregular, short lines of dark, dusty material appear in the field; these are commonly 
curved and resemble the fracture lines of an original tuff rich in glass and pumice 
fragments. ‘These are now profoundly altered and the interstitial spaces are more 
or less filled with secondary material, much of which is submicroscopic in size. 
Some secondary quartz is present in fine veinlets and aggregates; also calcite in thin, 
thread-like lines. Chlorite is common and fills cracks and interstitial spaces; in 
some cases it appears to be an alteration product of original hornblende, but the 
evidence is too indefinite to be decisive. Small grains of iron oxide surrounded by 
a brown alteration zone are common; they are probably titaniferous magnetite. 

In the ground-mass, much of the material 1s too fine for satisfactory identifica- 
tion. ‘There is present some argillaceous material, some secondary calcite, some 
quartz; aggregates of radial spherulites of a colorless, weakly birefracting mineral 
of positive elongation and refractive index about 1.480 occur, especially near cor- 
roded plagioclase feldspars. In the ground-mass there is present an isotropic or 
weakly birefracting substance of refractive index about 1.460. 

In view of the profound alteration of the matrix, the relatively unaltered con- 
dition of the plagioclase crystals is surprising. It appears that the glassy tuff frag- 
ments suffered rapid devitrification and subsequent alteration, whereas the primary 
plagioclase and quartz crystals and fragments remained unchanged, except for mar- 
ginal attack and alteration. 

The evidence, so far as it can be gathered from the few small specimens, points 
definitely toward their tuffaceous origin. The conditions which led to induration 
of the fragments of tuff which now appear as inclusions in the larger masses of rock 
can be ascertained only by field work. Both the inclusions and their host may 
properly be designated andesite tuffs; the presence of quartz in some of the speci- 
mens and the lack of ferromagnesian minerals indicates that the rocks are high in 
silica and alkalies and approach dacite tuffs in composition. 

The causes which led to the profound alteration of these rocks and even the 
details of the changes as presented in the few specimens at hand can not be profit- 
ably discussed without further field evidence. 


GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY, 
CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON. 


APPENDIX II. 
THE CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM. 


No problem in Maya archeology has excited wider interest or provoked more 
general consideration than the correlation of the Maya chronological system with 
our own Gregorian calendar; and indeed, few problems of similar importance in 
any archeological field offer equal promise of ultimate exact solution. 

The nature of the Maya inscriptions upon which this correlation must neces- 
sarily depend is such as to indicate that an exact alinement of the two chronologies 
to the very day is not only a possible but also even a probable outcome of pending 
investigations. 

It has been frequently stated in these pages aie a large part of the Maya 
inscriptions, indeed practically all of the deciphered glyphs, treat of the subject of 
time in its various manifestations, such as the lengths of the apparent revolutions 
of the sun, moon, and other planets around the earth, and probably also of the 
eclipses which the first two occasionally undergo. In fine, it appears highly prob- 
able that actual astronomical phenomena of determinable nature are recorded in 
the Maya inscriptions; and it only awaits the exact identification of any one of these, 
such as any particular solar or lunar eclipse which was visible in northern Central 
America during the first six centuries of the Christian Era for example, to make 
immediately possible an exact correlation of Maya chronology with our own 
Gregorian calendar. | 

Pending the solution of this problem by the astronomical method, which, 
however imminent it may be, has yet to be achieved, the writer wishes to suggest a 
correlation of the two chronologies based upon other data, which he believes is 
probably correct to within 4 months and possibly to within 49 days. 

It was stated in Chapter I that Maya chronology is a highly artificial but 
exceedingly accurate system for measuring elapsed time, with the day as the basic 
unit of the count. The current day is given in terms of the total number of elapsed 
days which separate it from the starting-point of the system, a point more exactly 
fixed in time than the zero-point of our own calendar, 7. ¢., the birth of Christ. It 
finds its closest modern analogy not with our Gregorian calendar, but with our 
Julian Period, used by astronomers and chronologists in measuring elapsed time, 
the hypothetical starting-point of which is the year 4713 B.c. Indeed, the two 
systems are so similar that Professor R. W. Willson, of the Harvard Astronomical 
Department, has suggested to the writer the propriety of describing any Maya date 
by its corresponding Maya day number after the practice of astronomers and 
chronologists in designating any given date in the Gregorian calendar by its cor- 
responding Julian day number. 

As a matter of fact, the whole problem of the proper correlation of Maya 
and Christian chronology may be reduced to precisely this: the correct engage- 
ment of the Mayan and Julian Periods at any single point; for if it were possible 
to establish a single point of contact between the two, every date in Maya chron- 
ology could be transcribed into its corresponding Julian or Gregorian equivalent, 
and the dates on the Maya monuments would suddenly become more accurately 
fixed in our own chronology than any event of Old World history prior to the birth 

465 


466 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


of Christ, and this solely because of the extraordinarily exact character of the 
native Maya chronological system, which within itself is absolutely accurate. 

Having stated the problem, let us next examine the evidence upon which the 
correlation here suggested is based. During the Old Empire, Maya dates were 
recorded in terms of their corresponding Initial Series numbers; but, as we have 
already seen, even before the close of the Old Empire this method had begun to 
give way to Period Ending dating, which, however, was only a more abbreviated 
form of the same system. In Initial Series dating the total number of elapsed 
days from the starting-point to the day recorded is given, while in Period Ending 
dating only the positions of the periods, whose ending-dates are recorded in the 
periods next higher, are given. These two methods, however, are but different 
expressions of the same system, as noted above; and as the following example will 
show, they are interchangeable. 

- Thus, the Initial Series 10.2.0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Chen may be expressed by the 
following Period-Ending date: 3 Ahau 3 Chen, End of Katun 2. Or, reversing this 
process, 3 Ahau 3 Chen, End of Katun 2 may be expressed by its corresponding 
Initial Series 10.2.0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Chen. 

It will be noted in this reverse process that it is necessary to assume that the 
number of the current cycle was 10, but in the Old Empire the cycle-coefficient was 
always either 8, 9, or 10, and, as between these three, there is never any doubt on 
stylistic grounds as to which one was intended in a Period Ending date. Moreover, 
the record of the date upon which the specified katun ended renders it impossible for 
such a Period Ending to recur, fulfilling all the given conditions, until after a lapse 
of 18,980 katuns or about 374,153 years; so that for all practical purposes, as used 
in the Old Empire, Period Ending dating is as accurate as, and indeed is interchange- 
able with, Initial Series dating. 

Coming down to the New Empire, however, a very much less exact type of 
Period Ending is found, although even in these cases the Initial Series intended 
can usually be worked out. 

As used in the New Empire, in the few inscriptions that have come down to us 
(with but one exception),! only tun-ending dates appear to have been recorded. 
These, moreover, frequently lack the month-parts of their corresponding terminal 
dates, and consist only of the record of a specified tun, together with the day on 
which it ended. When the corresponding month-parts are not omitted, such tun- 
ending dates are accurate within a period of 18,980 tuns or about 18,707 years, but 
when they are omitted, as is usually the case, the resulting dates are only accurate 
within a period of 260 tuns or about 256 years.” 

A natural development out of the latter for use in the manuscripts, where long 
historical summaries had to be kept, but still only a further abbreviation of the 
original system, was the u kahlay katunob or sequence of the katuns, in which a 
katun was named after the day on which it ended, as 7 Ahau, 5 Ahau, 3 Ahau, for 
example, and no record was made of its corresponding month-part, or more im- 
portant still, of its position in the period next higher, that is the cycle. An example 
of this kind of count has already been given in Chapter I (page 43), where the 
u kahlay katunob will be seen to have consisted of nothing more than a series of 
the ending-days of the succeeding katuns accompanied by the record of the more 
important events, if any, which occurred in each. 

Finally, and this is most important of all in the present connection, the u kahlay 
katunob are more or less accurately correlated with Christian chronology by means 
of several events in them, the dates of which are given in terms of both chronologies. 

1The inscription on the capstone in the outer chamber of the East Range of the Monjas Quadrangle at Uxmal. 


(See figure 74.) 
*See Morley, 1918a, pp. 270-275. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 467 


The correlation here suggested therefore may be divided into two steps: 


(1) The correct alinement of the u kahlay katunob with Christian chronology. 
(2) The correct alinement of the Initial Series with the u kahlay katunob. 


When these two points of contact have been established, the dates of the 
Old Empire, the Initial Series, can be reduced to terms of our own chronology, 
through the medium of the common equivalents afforded by the u kahlay katunob) 

This, in brief, describes the method of procedure which the writer and every- 
one else has followed, and the different results reached by the several investigators 
of the problem (reviewed later), are due to the several interpretations placed upon 
the same evidence, chiefly the u kahlay katunob in the Books of Chilan Balam pub- 
lished by Brinton in 1882, under title of The Maya Chronicles? 

Unfortunately, as will appear later, these native records are more or less con- 
tradictory, especially in regard to the exact Maya equivalents, for specific days in 
the Christian Era, for which reason it appears hazardous to push this evidence to the 
point of deriving from it a correlation for which accuracy is claimed to the very day. 
This is attempting to read the vernier-scale of our instrument more accurately than 
the instrument was built to register. On the other hand, if exact correlation 1s 
not demanded, and if certain obviously contradictory dates in the Christian calen- 
dar are eliminated, and finally if we will accept approximate correlation, 7. ¢., a 
larger point of contact, say anywhere within a given year of the Christian Era, the 
writer believes satisfactory, and within these larger limits accurate, results can be 
obtained. 


SOURCES FOR THE CORRELATION OF THE U KAHLAY KATUNOB AND 
CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 


Taking up the first step mentioned above, 7. ¢., the alinement of the wu kahlay 
katunob with Christian chronology, let us first examine the original sources upon 
which this part of our correlation must be based. ‘The writer finds twelve authori- 
ties of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, nine native and three 
Spanish, which may be utilized in this connection as follows, arranged in chrono- 
logical order: 


I. The Chronicle of Chacxulubchen, written about 1562 by Nakuk Pech, the native 
Maya chief of that town. 
II. Relation of the Things of Yucatan, written not later than 1566 and not earlier than 
the close of 1561 by Diego de Landa, fourth Bishop of Yucatan. 
Ill. The u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, copied not later 
than 1595 by some native Maya. 
IV. The u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Tizimin, copied about 
the close of the sixteenth century, also by a native Maya. 
V. Page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, containing entries for 1532-1545, copied 
from “an ancient book,” on May 29, 1685, by Don Juan Xiu.’ (See figure 72.) 
VI. History of Yucatan, written in 1656 by Diego de Cogolludo, twelfth Bishop of 
Yucatan, and published in 1688. 
VII. An ancient Indian painting, bearing the date 1536 figured in the preceding. (See 
figure 73.) 
MLee ee Were Conquest of the Province of the Itza, written after 1697 and published 
in 1701 by Juan de Villagutierre Sotomayor. 





1The correlation of Maya and Christian chronology suggested in this Appendix was first proposed by the 
writer in 1909 at the Baltimore meeting of the Archzological Institute of America (Morley, 19104, p. 193), when 
it was announced that Stela 9 at Copan (9.6.10.0.0) dated from 284 to 304 A. D., depending upon which tun 
of Katun 13 Ahau 8 Kankin coincided with the year 1536. Subsequent investigations, described in this Appendix, 
have convinced the writer that it was the closing tun of this katun which coincided with the year 1536, and that 
Stela 9 at Copan therefore dates from 304 A. D. 

2See Brinton, 1882. 

3This is page 66 in the Gates pagination, or page 80 in the Breton pagination of this manuscript. With afew 
minor changes the Gates pagination appears to be the better of the two, 


468 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


IX. The first u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel, copied in 


1782 by Juan Josef Hoil. 
X. The Gyan u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel, copied 


in 1782 by Juan Josef Hoil. 
XI. The ce u kahlay katunob vate the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel, copied 


in 1782 by Juan Josef H 
XII. Page 85 of the Book of Chilan “Balam of Chumayel, copied in 1782 by Juan Josef 


Hoil.} 


As used hereinafter, these several authorities will be cited under the corre- 
sponding Roman numerals above. 

Concerning the relative merits of these sources, in matters pertaining to the 
native chronology, in general the writer places greater confidence in the statements 
of the native writers than in those of the Spanish historians (II, VI, and VIII), and 
naturally the earlier the authority the more likely he is to be correct. Most trust- 
worthy of all appears tobe I. Nakuk Pech was a member of the noble house of Pech 
of Cumkal, and was himself the hereditary batab or chief of Chacxulubchen. He 
speaks of having been an adult in 1519, and he must have been of mature years 
during the period of the Spanish Conquest, in which he took no small part, aiding 
the Spaniards whenever possible. He thus grew up under the native régime, re- 
ceiving his education, which must have been of the best, since he was to become 
chief one day, at the hands of the Maya priesthood before the Spanish Conquest, 
and therefore while the native institutions were still flourishing. In short, he 
possessed first-hand knowledge of what he wrote, and his statements, especially 
those regarding the native calendar and chronology, are to be accepted with greater 
confidence probably than those of any of the other authorities cited. Even in 
matters relating to Spanish history, such as the first appearance of whites in the 
peninsula (the wrecking of Ger6nimo de Aguilar and his companions on the east 
coast in 1511), the arrival of Cortés at Cozumel on February 28, 1519, the fall of 
Tenochtitlan on August 13, 1521, the first arrival of the Spaniards at Merida in 
1541, and the foundation of the city on January 6, 1542, Pech gives the correct year, 
and in the case of the fall of Tenochtitlan, even the correct day. Such accuracy on 
the part of a native in regard to Spanish events shows that he was an exceedingly 
careful writer, and gives to any statements he may make about his own calendar the 
highest degree of reliability.” 

Of the second source, Bishop Landa’s Relation, little further need be said here, 
his work having already been described in Chapter I (pages 28-30), as being the 
sine qua non of our knowledge of Mayachronology. It was composed prior to 1566,° 
but not before the close of 1561,* although some of the material may have been 





1This is page 85 of the Gordon reproduction of this manuscript (see Gordon, 1913), or the face of folio 46 of 
the original. 

2Unfortunately the original Pech manuscript has disappeared. Gates is of the opinion that the text in Don 
Rafael de Regil’s collection in Merida was only a copy of the original made by Pio Pérez. In 1918 the eminent 
Yucatecan scholar, Don Juan Martinez y Hernandez, found a duplicate chronicle by Ah Naum Pech, mentioned by 
Nakuk Pech as being the head of the family in his time, which he assures the writer is practically a word-for-word 
transcription of the Nakuk Pech chronicle, with only the name of the author changed. See Brinton, 1882, pp. 
189-259, for the text and translation of the Nakuk Pech version. 

3The title of the copy of Landa’s manuscript in the archives of the Royal Academy of History at Madrid 
bears this date: “Relation of the things of Yucatan taken from what Father Diego de Landa of the Order of San 
Francisco wrote. MDLXVI.” 

4Landa mentions in his Relation (1881, pp. 79, 80, 103) that he held an auto da fé at Mani, where many idols, 
hieroglyphic manuscripts, etc., were burned, and Cogolludo fixes the date of this event as having taken place after 
September 13, 1561, and before the early part of August 1562. See Cogolludo, 1688, pp. 308-310 and 322. 
Brinton says this event took place in 1562 (Brinton, 1882, p. 90). Shortly after his quarrel with Bishop Toral in 
1562, Landa returned to Spain, where he was tried in 1565, and it therefore seems most probable that he wrote 
his Relation at some Franciscan establishment in Spain in 1563-1565, while he was waiting for his trial. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 469 


gathered as early as 1553.) One of his chief informants, he tells us,2 was that 
Nachi Cocom, halach vinic of Sotuta, who figures so sanguinarily in connection with 
the murder of Napot Xiu at Otzmal in 1536, to be described later (Event C). Un- 
fortunately, Landa gives little information as to the correlation of the two chronolo- 
gies, and even his single statement bearing upon this point is probably incorrect. 
He does, however, give the correct version of Event C, as will appear later, which 
indeed must have been a matter of common knowledge at that time, having hap- 
pened only 13 years before he first came to Yucatan in 1549.° 

The third source, the u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, 
was compiled not later than 1595, according to internal evidence in the text. This 
chronicle and the other four u kahlay katunob (IV, LX, X, and XJ), the writer be- 
lieves were copied by native Maya, perhaps directly from Maya historical codices, 
which have since been either lost or destroyed. 

In spite of the fact that both III and IV have several lacunz in their series of 
the katuns, in essential points they agree remarkably with IX and X, and occasion- 
ally even with XI, the least complete of them all; and they constitute, in the writer’s 
opinion, perfectly reliable sources for the reconstruction of the main aspects of New 
Empire history. 

The fourth source, the u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of 
Tizimin, so closely resembles III, not only in phraseology but also in the positions 
and lengths of its several lacunz, as to indicate that both must have been copied 
from the same original, and, as already noted, probably about the same time.® This 
close similarity is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that III is said to have 
come from Mani,® in northwestern Yucatan, to which the Xiu removed after the 
abandonment of Uxmal in the middle of the fifteenth century, and IV from Tizimin 
in northeastern Yucatan, in the territory of the Itza. 

There h'as been some attempt in IV to fill the later lacunz in its series, since 
this chronicle agrees closely with III down to the fall of Chichen Itza and the end 
of the League of Mayapan, but after these events several katuns have been 
interpolated, which make a duplication in its series, some sections being recorded 
twice. A case in point is the interpolation of 13 katuns (from Katun 11 Ahau to 
Katun 11 Ahau), after the Katun 2 Ahau in which the Spaniards are said to have 


1The specimen Maya year which Landa gives (1881, pp. 90-102) begins with the day 12 Kan (ibid., p. 97) 
which fell in 1553, according to almost all the early sources. See pages 495-497. 

2Landa, 1881, p. 76. 

3Cogolludo, 1688, p. 268. 

4See Brinton, 1882, p. 70. 

5See ibid., p. 136. 

®6The Mani manuscript is first mentioned by Stephens, who says Pio Pérez furnished him with a copy of “a 
fragment of a Maya manuscript, written from memory by an Indian, at some time not designated, and entitled: 
Principal epochs of the ancient history of Yucatan.” (1841, vol. 11, pp. 278-280.) Brinton, who had access to 
Berendt’s notes, says the latter states that the u kahlay katunob published by Stephens was from a manuscript 
in the possession of a native schoolmaster of Mani named Balam. He quotes Berendt as follows on this point: 
“The historical data which Stephens published in the Appendix of his work were extracted from such a book of 
Chilan Balam in the possession of an Indian of Mani, master of the school, who, because he had the same name 
Balam, pretended to be a descendant of the priest of the Maya, who gave his name to this class of writings.” 
(Chilan Balam, Articulos y Fragmentos en Lengua Maya. MSS. Advertencia, p. vu. See Brinton, 1882, p. 91, 
note I. 

ei Brinton gives an extract from the Codice Pérez, a mass of material copied by Pio Pérez from various 
sources, among others this u kahlay katunob, which states that this chronicle was in the possession of the master 
of the chapel at Mani: “ Here ends the book entitled Chilambalam [from which III was extracted] which is preserved 
in the town of Mani in the possession of the master of the chapel.”’ (Jbid, same page and note.) 

Unfortunately, this most important manuscript has not been seen or heard of since the War of the Castes, 
which devastated Yucatan in 1847 and 1848, and the writer greatly fears it was destroyed at that time. It is not 
known surely whether a copy of it may be in existence or not. 


470 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


first reached Yucatan (Event A), and for which not a single event is recorded, the 
whole being merely a repetition of the previous 13 katuns. With the other u kahlay 
katunob to check by, however, especially IX, such repetitions may be eliminated, 
and both III and IV can be brought into satisfactory agreement with IX and X.! 

The fifth source is page 66 from the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, which is a col- 
lection of titles, baptismal certificates, and probanzas de hidalguta (proofs of nobility) 
family papers, etc., of the Xiu family, covering the period from 1608 to 1817, which 
remained in the possession of the family down to within the past two decades, and 
which is now in the Peabody Museum at Cambridge, Massachusetts.” 





1The Tizimin manuscript along with the Chumayel, Calkini, Kaua and others was copied by Berendt in 1868. 
After Berendt’s death his collection was acquired by Brinton, and most of the latter’s investigations in this field 
were based uponit. Bishop Carrillo y Ancona of Merida, says that the Tizimin manuscript was in his library in 1870. 
See Carrillo y Ancona, 1870, p. 128; also Brinton, 1882, p. 136. And while still in his possession in 1887, Teobert 
Maler made photographic copies of the Tizimin, Chumayel, Calkini, Kaua, and other manuscripts. A complete 
set of these prints, mounted and annotated by Maler, is now in the Gates collection. After Carrillo’s death the 
Tizimin manuscript next came to light in the possession of the lawyer who administered his estate, Don Ricardo 
Figueroa of Merida. When the writer was in Yucatan in 1913 he examined the Figueroa collection several times, 
but did not see it, although he was told that it was still in Figueroa’s possession at that time; however, it has never 
been seen since, and its present whereabouts are unknown. ‘The writer was extremely fortunate in obtaining a copy 
of this manuscript in Merida in 1913, which Gates believes to be the work of an educated Maya, written about 
30 to 40 years ago. On the front page is copied the following notation: 

“The cura who subscribes himself gives this book to Senor D. Crescencio Carrillo Pbro. for the use which he 
wishes to give it. Tizimin, March 23, 1870. Manuel Luciano Pérez. Rubric. 

Chilan Balam 
*Codice Tizimin’ 
“From the collection of the Pbro. Cres. Carrillo Ancona. Rubric. 
Note 

“This Codex is also called ‘anonymous’ inasmuch as the name of the Indian who wrote it does not appear. 
Rubric.” 

This copy is now in the Gates collection. It is written in a clear, fine hand, exceedingly legible throughout, 
and is perhaps the best copy of the Tizimin manuscript now extant. The above note indicates that it was in the 
possession of the Cura of Tizimin prior to March 23, 1870, and it doubtless emanates from that vicinity. 

2This manuscript was obtained from Bernabe Xiu (1839-1911), or someone close to him, by Thompson in 
1900 or 1901, and is now in the Peabody Museum. This Bernabe Xiu in all probability was a lineal descendant 
in the fifteenth generation of the Napot Xiu, who met such a violent death at Otzmal in 1536 (see Event C), 
and thus was descended from the former royal house of Uxmal. 

When the writer was at Oxkutzcab, Yucatan, in 1918, he obtained from Dona Felipa Xiu, the youngest 
daughter of Bernabe Xiu, genealogical data of the family from 1918 back to the close of the eighteenth century, 
and through recent collaboration with Mr. William Gates, it has been possible to connect the modern representa- 
tives of the family with the genealogical tree on one of the pages of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab. This page is 
unfortunately frayed at the edges, but in the lower left-hand margin can clearly be distinguished a part of the day- 
sign Ahau, and below this to the right there is a black dot and just below this, the word “katun.” The coefficient 
here can only have been 2, 3, or 4, and of these, 3 is the only one historically probable, if not indeed possible. 
In the correlation of the u kahlay katunob and Christian chronology suggested here, this can hardly have been 
other than the Katun 3 Ahau, which ended in 1635, which agrees well with the probable date of authorship of this 
part of the tree, as will appear below. 

The four generations at the left of the tree and also the Katun 3 Ahau just mentioned were probably added 
in 1635, nearly a century after the main part of the tree was drawn (1550), by Don Juan Xiu, born about 1622, who 
succeeded to the headship of the family in 1640, and who was living as late as 1689. His is the latest name on 
the tree, and, ingeniously enough, as if to indicate his authorship of these later additions, a hand points to his name. 

On the basis of four generations to a century, and the known dates of birth of the heads of the Xiu family 
during the seventeenth century, it is evident that the tree begins with the Tutul Xiu born about 1397, the last 
halach vinic to rule at Uxmal, who led the Maya chieftains against the Cocom of Mayapan in Katun 8 Ahau 
(about 1447) and destroyed their power. As a result of this victory, the largest cities were all abandoned and the 
Xiu themselves, presumably under this same individual, moved their capital to Mani. This break in the Xiu 
family history supplies the reason why at a later date, about 1550 (the generation contemporary with the Spanish 
Conquest is the last complete one, showing that the main part of the tree was drawn about that time), when the 
tree was made to establish their nobility and right to exemption from taxation, granted by the Spanish Crown to 
members of the native ruling families, their descent was traced only from the first member of the family who ruled 
at Mani, rather than from some earlier ancestor at Uxmal. 

From this Tutul Xiu, born about 1397, down to the little Dionisio Xiu, whom the writer saw playing on the 
mud floor of a thatched hut near Ticul, Yucatan, as a child of 3 in 1918, is a total of 22 generations. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 471 


The only document of this collection which concerns us here, page 66, is exactly 
dated by the following colophon at the bottom (see figure 72): 

“Now I, on May 29, 1685, have copied this from an ancient book, that is characters 
by name Anares. I, Don Jhoan Xiu.” 


4 


axuacek fumemm vaounLal : 


ata het tu YVec a gues Ww eR 15 35 anop Puce men Lue 09, 

Las fem pa 
iy fab 

1536 he ton te bee Luc oly eae lg NS ae Coe cao 
Cr, 7I— fu VHC te YOK Kine 1537 antp vaxacd Ca Vac te H pop Ones o 

pul hab ofrmale kek Lob Fa2 alsin petal xia yerele$ cya 
eet ae totem oa fa ma MAY ter Ye - ah ment yan ha 
yew 606 K ma we pul hac! tuch ro eae 
be na fev veckna a Mtr g é Fac Apri d Lt er prt as 
fun fe Cate Gear Wane bay ber ha he Lok’ 
159% an7 bolo Kan as ones Kaw te hum 26 pop ateas ite hel vy 


Gin 108 cm far. yaxaca han he tun tiback kun 
15 3.4 andy Zon rm Lic qu haan 4 pop cam a Tae he tun tb a 


Re xuhe 
1740 anof foal ag RX. be kam 6 pop: oe tahun a hau heqntevue 
154.1 andy Age Chea vac tu hun sepip 63 fam a Lass he trem tu 


SEB aren Kon tepip Vhes3 pone resi 


iat ‘of, ax Kopp ti pa ra no Be tu ment ag mam cb ry er 
ae 7 ~ CS FuVect ae a 5a % , z 
oom ae 


15 49 andy ham resethce tra hom 46 pop an 42 FB 2170" SSeS see 
Ka tum tS p& » reso he Veapitan nile alonso AEH oe 92 r 
Aye tii tn br Luc # ceee @kX Y Kas 9.2 Pop 


hun o Ear 
$44 anor ig et seoaatehel a , ere es 
apace me tt PoP Hep ce po tame n 
Las v tu Vatpet peare ‘LLo 0 fan frog 
7 eo pa 
Saeponb0 fe droge be be for SA aes at 
Lois vi me Zam ab frardy oe Jerr bay ne 
hee ky fapabob te 1S * toe 
heed fase he pum We Fearn EOL 


Chay ag oe mege ON O57 B28 
Cala te 1245 Hella J IO ee 


DF oan Kt tf 
ne 


Fic. 72—Page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab. 


PARIOTE 


472 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Again we have a native source of the greatest value, copied by a member of 
the most important native family in Yucatan at the time of the conquest, namely, 
the Xiu, from “an ancient book”’ in ‘“‘characters by name Anares.”” In Anares we 
can hardly fail to see the word “‘analtehes,” which Villagutierre uses less than 15 
years later (1701) to describe the hieroglyphic manuscripts of Canek, the last 
independent Mayanruler: “Because their king (Canek) had read it in his analtehes, 
they had knowledge of the provinces of Yucatan, and of the fact that their ancestors 
had formerly come from them (analtehes or histories being one and the same thing).””} 
And in “‘characters”’ (Spanish caracteres) we have precisely the same word, which 
Landa, Lizana, and Ponce use to describe the hieroglyphics themselves.” 

This evidence is so convincing that the writer believes the ‘‘ancient book”’ 
from which Don Juan Xiu copied the entries on page 66 of the Chronicle of 
Oxkutzcab on May 29, 1685, was nothing less than a hieroglyphic manuscript, in 
short a codex, and that his copy thereof may be regarded as an original source of 
the highest order of credibility. 

The sixth source, Cogolludo’s History of Yucatan, contains no material for cor- 
relating the u kahlay katunob with Christian chronology. It gives, however, a full 
account of the history of the Roman Catholic Church in Yucatan during the first 
century of the Spanish régime, and is particularly complete in regard to the activi- 
ties of the friars. Its especial importance in the present connection lies in the fact 
that it fixes the dates in Christian chronology of Event C (the death of Napot Xiu), 
Event D (the foundation of Merida), Event E (the arrival of Bishop Toral in Yuca- 
tan), and Event F (the death of Bishop Landa), which the native authorities give 
in terms of their own chronology in 
the u kahlay katunob. 

Molina Solis says Cogolludo 
wrote his history in 1656, although 
it was not published until 1688 in 
Madrid,*? and we may doubtless 
assume that his information as to 
these early events of Spanish history 
in Yucatan is substantially correct. 

The seventh source is insepar- 
able from the preceding, since it was 
published therein, and is in fact the 
only illustration the book contains.* 
Fortunately we have independent 
corroboration of its existence by 
Stephens in 1841. Itis an old Indian 
painting (see figure 73) which, ac- 
cording to Cogolludo’s interpreta- 
tion, sets forth the death of Napot 
Xiu at Otzmal. Inthe page facing 
this plate the Bishop states that the 
original painting had the year 1536 
on it, although he tries to prove this wo . : 
is an error for 1541.° This painting Fic. 73—Representation of a Katun-wheel (?) on page 133 
shows acircle of 13 human heads with of Bishop Cogolludo’s Historia de Yucathan. 








1Villagutierre Sotomayor, 1701, p. 353. 

*Landa, 1881, p. 103; Lizana, 1893, p. 3; and Ponce, 1872, tom. Hy, p. 392. 

®Molina Solis, 1904, p. 66. On page 127 of his history, Cogolludo speaks of “how I went this year of 1655 
personally” to Campeche for the purpose of verifying the date of its foundation. 

4Cogolludo, 1688, p. 133. 5Jbid., p. 132. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 473 


the eyes closed, a name being written below each, that of Napot Xiu being at the top 
on the left. The thirteenth head, counting sinistrally from Napot Xiu, that of Ah 
Kin Chi, 1s slightly different from the others. Although the eyes are closed, an 
arrow also pierces it (see figure 73). This, Cogolludo explains as indicating that 
the life of one of the Xiu envoys, this Ah Kin Chi, was spared so that he might carry 
the tidings of the massacre back to Mani, although he was first blinded by having 
his eyes pierced with an arrow. Finally, within the circle, according to Stephens, 
is the Tree of Otzmal, where the massacre is said to have taken place. As will 
appear later under Event C, a somewhat different interpretation of this painting is 
more probable here. 

Fortunately, when Stephens was at Mani in 1841, the original was still in 
existence: 

“Albino had inquired of the cacique for the ancient relics of which we had heard ac- 
counts, and the Indians brought a copy of Cogolludo, wrapped up and treasured with great 
care in the casa real. ‘This did not astonish us much, and they opened the book, and pointed 
out a picture, the only one in it, being a representation of the murder of the ambassadors of 
Tutul Xiu; and while we were looking at it they brought out and unrolled on the floor an 
old painting on cotton cloth, being the original from which Cogolludo had the engraving 
made. ‘The design was a coat of arms, bordered with the heads of the murdered ambassa- 
dors, one of which has an arrow fixed in the temple, intended to represent the ambassador 
who had his eyes put out with this weapon. In thecenter is a tree growing out of a box, rep- 
resenting the sapote tree at Zotuta, under which the murder was committed, and which the 
Indians say is still standing. This tree I shall have occasion to mention again hereafter. 
The painting had evidently been executed by an Indian, and probably very near the time 
of the occurrence which it was intended to commemorate. Cogolludo refers to it as an 
interesting and ancient relic in his time, and, of course, it is much more so now. It is an 
object of great reverence among the Indians of Mani.’”! 


In this ancient painting we again have a native and probably contemporaneous 
source of highest credibility, and although in Cogolludo’s engraving of it the 
year 1536 is omitted, his calling attention thereto in the accompanying text as an 
error on the part of the native painter serves to associate that date with the death 
of Napot Xiu in an unusually convincing manner. 

The eighth source, Villagutierre Sotomayor’s History of the Conquest of the 
Province of the Itza, written between 1697 and 1701, contains but a single item of 
importance in the present connection; but this is no less than the direct statement 
that 1618, the year of Father Fuensalida’s visit to Tayasal, the island capital of the 
Itza in Lake Peten Itza, occurred in a Katun 3 Ahau.? 

This is particularly significant because, as will appear later, although the Itza 
had migrated from Yucatan two and a half centuries before 1697, their chronology 
was still in agreement with that prevalent in Yucatan down to and even after the 
Spanish Conquest a century and a half earlier. ‘This source also agrees with III, IV, 
IX, and XI in placing the fall of Mayapan in Katun 8 Ahau.’* 

Our remaining sources, IX, X, XI, and XII, the three u kahlay katunob and 
page 85 from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel, may best be compared to- 
gether. All four were copied by Juan Josef Hoil of the village of Chumayel, 24 
kilometers east of Mani, about 1782. Page 81 of this manuscript shows Hoil’s 
signature and the date January 20, 1782. ‘They are doubtless redactions of much 
earlier originals now either lost or destroyed. 

The first u kahlay katunob from the Chumayel manuscript is, in the writer’s 
opinion, much the best one of the five that have come down to us, since it is the only 
one in which the sequence of the katuns is absolutely without a single lacuna from 
beginning to end—an uninterrupted series of 61 katuns from the discovery of 


1Stephens, 1843, vol. 11, pp. 260, 261. 2Villagutierre Sotomayor, 1701, pp. 83, 84, 105, 106. 3Jbid., pp. 105, 106. 


474 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Chichen Itza (said to have taken place in a Katun 6 Ahau), down to a Katun 3 
Ahau, nearly a century after the Spanish Conquest, and thus it presents an un- 
broken section of New Empire history for more than 12 centuries.! 

Although it does not reach as far back as the Mani and Tizimin u kahlay 
katunob by something like 275 years, it nevertheless begins with the earliest event of 
New Empire history, the discovery of Chichen Itza (some time between 432 to 452 
A.D. in the correlation of the u kahlay katunob and Christian chronology suggested 
here), and unlike the other four, once started it continues without a break right 
down to and past the time of the Spanish Conquest. 

This chronicle is our most trustworthy authority for New Empire history, and 
it has proved of invaluable aid in checking up the lacunz and repetitions in III and 
IV, and in bringing them into agreement with it. It is not quite so detailed as III 
and IV, but its chief value lies in the continuity of its sequence of katuns, and it is 
no exaggeration to say that without it there would be no single u kahlay katunob 
in which entire confidence could be placed. It is preceded by the following heading: 


“This is the record of the count of the katuns from when took place the discovery of 
* Chichen Itza; this is written for the town in order that it may be known by whoever wishes 
to know as to the counting of the katuns.’” 


In spite of the fact that it emanates from Xiu territory (Chumayel), it is 
clearly an Itza chronicle, beginning with the discovery of the site of the Itza capital, 
and mentioning “the men of the Itza” or “those of Itza”’ five different times, and the 
Xiu only once, and that at the very end, 7. ¢., in the entry recording the death of 
their ruler Napot Xiu in 1536. 

In comparing the relative value of this u kahlay katunob with the others, the 
writer gives it most weight of all. It lacks the mythological opening entry of III. 
It makes no mention of the Xiu, who probably did not reach Yucatan until 500 
years after the discovery of Chichen Itza. And finally it presents an unbroken 
history of the first-comers into the peninsula, namely, the Itza, down to the time 
of the Spanish Conquest. In short, as noted above, it is our most reliable original 
source for the reconstruction of New Empire history. 

The second u kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel is 
again an Itza record. It is prefaced with the following title: 


“The Record of the Katuns by the men of Itza called the Maya Katuns.’’ 


It does not begin so early even as IX, and, moreover, is confused in the order 
and position of the earlier events; for example, ascribing the plot of Hunnac Ceel 
to a Katun 5 Ahau instead of a Katun 8 Ahau, and placing the abandonment of 
Chakanputun a century after the plot of Hunnac Ceel, whereas III, IV, and IX 
all agree that this event took place two and a half centuries before that plot. 

It has, however, a peculiar value not possessed by any of the others. It gives 
not only the katuns in which Napot Xiu died, the Spaniards arrived, and Bishop 
Toral arrived, but also the particular tuns as well. If these are correct, or, as the 
writer believes, not more than a year out of the way, they constitute an invaluable 
check on the correlation of the two chronologies, limiting the margin of error, when 
taken into consideration with the other events to be described, to less than one year. 

1By a curious error, Brinton omits the Katun 8 Ahau in which Chichen Itza was first abandoned, assigning 
that event to the katun next preceding, Katun ro Ahau (1882, p. 153). Gordon, in his reproduction of the text, 
corrects this error in his preface (1913, pp. 8, 9), and reference to plate 74 of that reproduction will show that the 
original manuscript has the Katun 8 Ahau which Brinton omits. 

*Brinton, 1882, p. 158. The translations from the u kahlay katunob in this Appendix are chiefly those of 
Brinton, but many minor changes have been made and a few interpolations introduced to clarify the sense of 
the original Maya. The corresponding Brinton references are given in all cases. 


8] bid., p. 169. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 475 


The third « kahlay katunob from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel is 
the least serviceable of all of the native chronicles. It is, in fact, not a series of 
consecutive katuns at all, but an alternating series of Katuns 4 Ahau and Katuns 
13 Ahau; only in the concluding paragraph are any other katuns mentioned, and 
these are not in order. This source has little value for the reconstruction of Maya 
history.! 


HISTORICAL EVENTS UPON WHICH THE CORRELATION OF THE U KAHLAY 
KATUNOB AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY IS BASED. 


Having examined the source material, let us next consider the several events 
upon which the correlation of the u kahlay katunob and Christian chronology must 
be based, always bearing in mind that the more detailed the information is in the 
native sources, the greater are the resulting discrepancies, and that it is only in the 
larger points of contact, 1. ¢., the katuns, that we get really striking agreements 
all along the line. 

The writer finds in the foregoing sources seven events which are recorded in 
terms of both chronologies as follows: 


(A) The first appearance of the Spaniards in Yucatan, which was the wreck of Gerénimo 
Aguilar and his companions on the eastern coast of the peninsula in 1511. (I, 
I], II, and IV.) 

(B) The Utes ay a katun ended in 1517, and the implication that it was a Katun 
2 Ahau. (I. 

(C) The massacre of Napot Xiu and other western Maya chieftains at Otzmal in 1536. 
HiviieiVoy. Vie-Vil, Fo, and All.) 

(D) The final pacification of Yucatan in 1541, and the foundation of Merida on Janu- 
arian eee tle Lill VV Vig LX, XX and XII.) 

(E) The arrival of the third bishop, Francisco Toral, in Yucatan between August 1 
and August 15, 1562, which the writer believes signified to the native mind 
the official beginning of Christianity. (I, II, III, IV, VI, TX, X.) 

(F) The death of the fourth bishop, Diego de Landa, on April 29, 1579. (III, IV, VI, 
IX, and X.) 

(G) The statement that the year 1618 fell in a Katun 3 Ahau. (VIII.) 


Event A. 
The date of this event is fixed in Christian chronology by I and II as follows: 
“The year in which first came our Lords the Spaniards here to this land was the year 


et Cakgmes a 
; And hs year the first foreigners came here to the Land of the Cupuls was the year 
1511. In former times no one saw Spanish foreigners, not until Geronimo de Aguilar was 
captured by the natives of Cozumel.’* _(1.) 
“The first Spaniards who landed in Yucatan, as they say, were Geronimo de Aguilar, a 
native of Ecija, and his companions, who in the year 1511, in the turmoil in Darien on 
account of the dissensions between Diego de Nicueza and Vasco Nunez de Balboa, followed 


1The Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel is first mentioned by Brinton (1882, p. 152) as being in the posses- 
sion of Bishop Carrillo y Ancona. The text Brinton published was the copy made by Berendt in 1868. After 
the death of Bishop Carrillo y Ancona the original text appeared in the possession of the Bishop’s lawyer, Don 
Ricardo Figueroa, who also had the Tizimin, Kaua, and Ixil manuscripts. Through the kindness of Don Audo- 
maro Molina of Merida, Gordon was permitted to bring the original back to Philadelphia in 1910, where a photo- 
graphic copy was made which was published in 1913. See Gordon, 1913. The original was subsequently returned 
to Figueroa, in whose house the writer saw it in 1913. It was removed to the Cepeda library facing the Parque 
Hidalgo in Merida in 1915 for safe-keeping, but when the writer visited Yucatan in 1918 he was told that it had 
disappeared from the library and that its present whereabouts were unknown. In view of its doubtful fate, it 
is nothing short of providential that two photographic copies of it exist, the one made by Maler in 1887, a copy of 
which is now in the Gates collection, and the other made by Gordon in 1910, 

2Al] the Christian dates throughout this Appendix are Old Style, even including those subsequent to 1582, 
when the Gregorian Calendar was first introduced. 

3Brinton, 1882, p. 216. 4Ibid., p. 226. 


476 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Valdivia, who went in a caravel to Santo Domingo to give account to the admiral and 
governor of what was happening, and to carry 20,000 ducats of the king. As this caravel 
was approaching Jamaica, it sunk into the depths which they call Viboras, where it was 
lost, so that there did not escape more than 20 men, who with Valdivia entered a small boat 
without sails, and only supplied with some bad oars. And without food of any kind, they 
went for 13 days on the sea; after deaths by hunger, almost half arrived on the coast of 
Yucatan at a province which they call Maya, which in the language of Yucatan is called 
Mayathan, that is to say, the language of the Maya.” (II.) 


Event A is fixed in the u kahlay katunob by III as follows: 


“(Katun] 2 Ahau: during this year the Spaniards first passed, and first came to this 
land, the province of Yucatan.’’? (III.) 


And if we could be sure that Valdivia and his companions introduced the 
small-pox into Yucatan when they came in 1511, which is not at all unlikely, IV 
and IX could be counted upon as additional sources of corroboration: 


“(Katun] 2 Ahau; the small-pox took place.’ (IV.) 
“(Katun] 2 Ahau; the small-pox broke out.’* (IX.) 


Even without IV and LX, however, I, II, and III, fix Event A in both chronolo- 
gies, and it may be accepted without reservation that the year 1511 fell in a Katun 
2 Ahau. 

Event B. 

The next event, or more properly speaking two events, is mentioned only by 
one source (I), but in two different and mutually corroboratory passages, one at the 
beginning of the chronicle and the other about halfway through. In the first pass- 
age it is stated that an unnamed katun came to an end in 1517: 

“Thus the land was discovered by Aguilar, who was eaten by Ah Naum Ah Pat at 
Cuzamil’ in the year 1517. In this year the katun ended, and then ended the putting in 
place of the town stone, for at each twentieth tun they came to place the town stones, for- 
merly, when the Spaniards had not yet come to Cuzamil, to this land; since the Spaniards 
came it has ceased to be done.’”® 


Although the particular katun which came to an end in 1517 is not specified 
above, this information is given, at least inferentially, in the opening line of this 
chronicle: 


“The fifth division [marker] of Katun 11 Ahau was placed when the Spaniards arrived 
and settled the city of Merida.’” 


And in still a third passage the correct date for this event is given in Christian 
chronology: 

Ler A & the third time they arrived they settled permanently, in the year 1542 they 
settled permanently in the territory of Merida, 13 Kan being the year-bearer according to 
the Maya reckoning.’” 


In the first quotation we are told directly that a katun ended in 1517, and in 
the second, information is given which indicates that this could only have been a 
Katun 2 Ahau. Let us examine the second passage more closely. 

This states that the fifth division, or five divisions, of Katun 11 Ahau had been 
placed, that is, completed according to the Maya conception of time, when Merida 
was founded, which event a third passage then fixes as having occurred in 1542. 
Now, no matter whether ho be rendered by the ordinal fifth or the cardinal five, the 


1Landa, 1881, p. 72. 2Brinton, 1882, p. 103. 3Tbid., p. 148. 4Tbid., p. 161. 

’This is one of Nakuk Pech’s very rare errors. Aguilar was not eaten at Cozumel in 1517, but was rescued by 
Cortés in 1519. Some of his companions, however, met this fate in 1511 or 1512. 

6Brinton, op. cit., pp. 226, 227. TIbid., p. 216. 8Jbid., p. 228. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 477 


only katun which could have ended in 1517 and still agree with these conditions is a 
Katun 2 Ahau.! 

But we may make an even closer correlation from these data than the above. 
As will be seen under Event D, Merida was founded on January 6, 1542, or, ex- 
pressed decimally, in 1542.016. 2 Now, if 5 tuns (4.928 years) of Katun 11 Ahau 
had been placed, 7. ¢., completed, before Merida was founded, which the writer 
believes is the correct interpretation of the second passage above, Katun 13 Ahau 
must have ended some time between 1536.102 and 1537.086 in order to have Event 
D (1542.016), fall in the sixth tun of Katun 11 Ahau at all. 

But, on the other hand, we can not make the ending of Katun 13 Ahau any 
later than 1537.712 or the previous katun-ending will not fall in 1517, as stated in 
the first passage above, but in 1518; and similarly, if we make the ending of Katun 
13 Ahau any earlier than 1536.713, it will not fall in 1517 as stated, but in 1516. 

Combining these two sets of limits, therefore, we will find that Katun 13 Ahau 
can not have ended any earlier than 1536.713 and still agree with the first quotation 
or any later than 1537.086 and still agree with the second quotation, which reduces 
our correlation of the two chronologies under Event B alone to within 5 months, 
which agrees, moreover, with Event A as far as the latter goes. 





1Brinton through a misconception as to the meaning of the word tzuc (here translated division and assumed 
to have been synonymous with tun), was led into a curious error in the second quotation above. He believed 
tzuc was a period composed of 4 years, and on this basis concluded that the Spaniards first arrived at Merida at 
the close of Katun 11 Ahau, 1.¢., 5 4 years=20 years, an event which took place in July 1541, although the 
city was not formally established until 6 months later. On the basis of this conclusion, and the fact that a katun 
is also said to have ended in 1517, he is compelled to assume that a katun was 24 years long. This is, of course, 
incorrect, and Brinton’s error arose through his mistake as to the meaning of the word tzuc in the opening line of 
the chronicle. 

The Motul dictionary gives a number of meanings for this word: “A tuft or queue of hairs; or the mane of a 
horse, or the beard which corn throws up while it is in the ear; and the head which some axes and hammers have 
as opposed to the cutting-edge, and the head of a forked pole, and the clouds rising aloft, and which they say 
denote a tempest of rain. Parts or sections, a counting particle for towns, for parts, paragraphs and articles, 
and many different words.” 

Brinton (1882, p. 55) says the tzuc was called /ustro by the Spaniards and was equal to 4 years, as already 
noted. The passage from Cogolludo (1688, p. 186), which he quotes in support of this statement, contains no 
mention of the word ¢zuc at all, and Brinton’s translation of it as being equivalent to the /ustro, a period of 4 years, 
must be rejected. Indeed, in a passage from XI, precisely this meaning of division is repeatedly indicated as ap- 
plied both to people and to territories: “They went forth in four divisions (cantzuc), which were called the four 
territories (cantzucul cab). One division (huntzuci) came forth from the east of Kin Colah Peten; one division 
(huntzucci) came forth from the north of Nacocob; one division (huntzucci) came forth from the gate of Zuyuua to 
the west; one division (huntzuccie) came forth from the mountains of Canhek, the Nine Mountains as the land 
is called. Katun 4 Ahau; then took place the calling together of the four divisions (can tzuccilob) the four terri- 
tories (cantzuccul cab) as they are called.” (Brinton, op. cit., pp. 180, 181.) 

Gates, in a recent communication to the writer, reaches a similar conclusion: “tzuc is one of the numerous 
Maya numeral counters, and is used where a given number of the parts or sections into which something is divided 
is referred to, as chapters or paragraphs. Ho (5) tzuc here thus refers to the completion of five of the (20) sections 
(tuns) into which a katun is divided, that is, to the hotun period.” 

As used in the opening passage of I, the word tzuc should be translated “division” or “part,” and is used 
as a synonym for tun, o1 the twentieth part of a katun. 

The writer has felt it necessary to go into this matter at some length in order to vindicate the accuracy of 
this chronicle, which Brinton’s translation here jeopardizes. For if tzuc did mean 4 years instead of simply one 
of the 20 divisions of the katun, it forces Nakuk Pech into one of two equally unfavorable positions: eith:r he 
contradicts himself flatly in saying that one katun ended in 1517 and another in 1541, or he makes the katun 24 
years instead of 20 years in length, an obvious error. As translated above, however, he is in perfect agreement 
with himself when he states that one katun ended in 1517, and the fifth division of the next but one ended before 
January 6, 1542. 

2Throughout this Appendix all dates in Christian chronology are expressed decimally as the above. Thus, 


for example, January 6 is Een or 0.016 year, the year chosen here being the tropical year of 365 days 5 hours 


48 minutes and 46.04 seconds, that is, from one tropic or equinox around to the same. ‘This gives a fraction of 
365. 242199+, but as used here this is carried no farther than the second place, the year being regarded as 365.24 
days inlength. On this basis the following equivalents have been used: 1 day=0.00274 year; I tun=0.986 year; 
1 hotun=4.928 years; 1 katun= 19.713 years. 


478 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Event C. 


This event, the death of Napot Xiu in 1536, is perhaps the most important of 
all those here under investigation, and as will appear in the following quotations, 
special effort seems to have been made in most of the native sources to fix it with 
greater precision than any of the others. For this reason it has been made the 
basis of several correlations (Bowditch and Goodman), that unfortunately differ 
widely in their results, and the writer believes the safest course to follow here is to 
utilize only the more general statements, concerning which there is almost complete 
unanimity of record. 

All of our twelve sources describe this event except I, VIII, and XI; although 
it is difficult to explain why there should be no reference to it in the first, which was 
written by a native, who must have been a friend, and was a contemporary of the 
murdered Napot Xiu, although he relates a subsequent event, possibly of about 
the year 1542, or possibly as late as 1545, that seems to refer to another incident with 
which Cogolludo may have confused Event C.1 

The earliest account of this event is given in II, which was written between 25 
and 30 years after it happened: 

“The Spaniards having gone forth from Yucatan [1535], there was a scarcity of water 
in the land, and as they had used their maize recklessly in the wars with the Spaniards, 
there came upon them a great hunger, so great that they were even brought to eat the 
bark of trees, especially one which they called cumche, which is soft and tender inside. On 
account of this famine the Xiu who are the Lords of Mani resolved to make a solemn sacrifice 
to the idols, bearing certain slaves, both men and maidens, to be thrown into the well of 
Chichenitza, and to reach which they have to pass by the town of the Lords Cocomes, their 
principal enemies, and so thinking that in such a time ancient passions would not be 
renewed in this land, they [the Xiu] sent to them [the Cocom] asking them to let them [the 
Xiu] pass through their land. And the Cocomes deceived them with a fair reply, and giving 
them shelter all together in one great house they set fire to it and slew those who escaped, and 
for this reason there were great wars.’”? 


The next account in III is not so circumstantial as the preceding, but it gives 
more chronological data, and, moreover, is the earliest source to associate the date 
1536 with this event: 

“Tn [Katun] 13 Ahau the water-bringer’ died; for six years the count of [Katun] 13 Ahau 
will not be ended; the count of the year was toward the East, the month Pop began with 
[the day] 4 Kan; 184 Zip, 9 Imix was the day on which the water-bringer died, and that the 
count may be known in numbers and years, it was the year 1536, sixty years after the fortress 
was destroyed.’ 





1This was the blinding of three envoys, Ikeb, Caixicum, and Chuc, who were sent by Tutul Xiu at Francisco 
Montejo’s request to Nachi Cocom to urge upon the latter his submission to the Spanish authority. A minor 
Cocom chieftain, Ah Cuat Cocom, seems to have put out the eyes of these envoys and sent them back to Mani 
without the knowledge of Nachi Cocom (Brinton, 1882, pp. 237, 238). See page 481. 

2Landa, 1881, p. 77. 

3The word ahpula, ahpulha, plural ahpulhaob, is not translated by Brinton, who treats it as a proper noun. 
It means, however, a bringer of water, ah being the masculine prefix, pul to bring, and ha water. The title doubt- 
less refers to the object of the pilgrimage upon which the western Maya chieftains under Ah Napot Xiu were engaged, 
namely, to sacrifice at the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza in order to bring water, 7.¢., rain. (See note to Gates 
translation on p. 509.) 

4For some unknown reason, possibly connected with the year-bearers, the positions of the days in the months 
underwent a shift of one position forward, probably after 1201 A. p. Thus, for example, during the Old Empire the 
month coefficients always accompanying any day Ahau are either 3, 8, 13, or 18, but at the close of the New Empire 
they are always 2, 7, 12, or 17. Again, in the Old Empire Imix is always accompanied by a month-coefficient of 4, 
9, 14, or 19, but at the close of the New Empire by either 3, 8, 13, or 18, as here. This shift in all probability was 
accompanied by no actual gain or loss of time, because the Maya chronological system was such that the loss or 
gain of but a single day would have thrown their whole calendar into confusion. In the writer’s correlation, as well 
as in that proposed by Bowditch, and in fact in all of the attempts to correlate Christian chronology with the Maya 
Long Count, it is necessary to postulate that this change had no corresponding effect upon the continuity of the 
day series, or, indeed, upon the sequence of any of the time periods, which the exigencies of the system demanded 
should follow each other without lacune. 

5Brinton, 1882, pp. 103, 104. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 479 


The version of this event in IV is so similar to the preceding that one can not 
escape the conclusion that both were copied from the same original: 
“[Katun] 13 Ahau; the death of the water-bringer took place; it was the sixth year 


when ended the count of Katun 13 Ahau; the count of the year was from the east, (the month) 
Pop passed on 4 Kan, 18 Zip, 9 Imix was the day the water-bringer died; it was the year 
bate, PIV 

The next version of this event, that in V, should be the most credible of all 
our sources, since rt emanates from the family of the murdered man himself, being 
copied by one of his great-great-great-great grandsons from an ancient and pre- 
sumably a Xiu book. It therefore should give an authentic account of the tragedy: 

“1537. 8 Cauac on the first of Pop when there died the water-bringers at Otzmal, namely 
Ahtz’un Tutul Xiu, and Ah Ziyah Napuc Chi,? and Namay Che and Namay Tun and the 
priest (ahmen) Evan * * * * men at Mani they were, water-bringers at Chichen Ytza, 
then; and there escaped Nahau Veeh, Napot Covoh; on to Zip it took place, in 12 Ahau it 
was, the tun on 2 Yaxkin it was, that it may be remembered.’* (V.) 

This passage requires some elucidation. In the first place, the year intended 
to be understood here is not 1537 as actually recorded, but 1536. This is true, 
because the Christian years given on this page of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab (see 
figure 72) are those in which fell the ends of the Maya years indicated. Thus, for 
example, in the above quotation, although the year 8 Cauac began in July 1536 
and ended in July 1537, only the year 1537 1s actually recorded. ‘This is proved by a 
lower entry (see page 507) where the foundation of Merida is given as having 
occurred in a year 13 Kan, in the year 1542; that is, this year 13 Kan began in July 
1541 and ended in July 1542, and thus included within its span January 6, 1542. 
According to this version of the story, five men, Ahtz’un Tutul Xiu, Ah Ziyah Napuc 
Chi, Namay Che, Namay Tun, and the priest Evan lost their lives, Nahau Veeh 
and Napot Covoh escaping. 

One other very important point should be noted in connection with this passage. 
The tun in which this event took place is said to have ended on the day 12 Ahau 
2 Yaxkin, which tun-ending does in fact fall in the year 8 Cauac, that is, 12 Ahau 
2 Yaxkin is exactly 121 days later than 8 Cauac 1 Pop. 

Here, indeed, is a significant point, and one which may eventually explain the 
greater part of the existing confusion in the Books of Chilan Balam as to the proper 
alinement of the u kahlay katunob and Old Empire chronology. We see here the 
confusion which inevitably arises when a chronological system expressed in units of 
current time like the Aztec years is grafted upon a system expressed in units of 
elapsed time like the Maya tuns and katuns. For example, the above entry states 
that the death of Ahtz’un Tutul Xiu occurred in a year which began on the day 8 Cauac, 
on a day 10 Zip, 49 days after the beginning of that year, and in a tun 12 Ahau 2 
Yaxkin, 72 days before the end of that tun (7. ¢., 49-+-72=121 days).4 In other 
words, although the year-bearers governed or ushered in current time-periods of 365 
days, the tuns or 360-day periods, as well as the katuns or 7,200-day periods, down 
to the very end of the New Empire were named after their ending-days. ‘Thus, the 

1Brinton, 1882, pp. 148, 149. 

2The names Ahtz’un and Ahziyah both appear as first or given names on the Xiu genealogical tree, although 
both are capable of being translated. Gates reads the former as “the leader,” and Cogolludo (1688, p. 130) the 
latter as ‘the governor-priest.”” The evidence afforded by this tree tends to indicate that they are both used as 
given names here. These same two individuals probably appear as father and son under the names of Nappol 
Chuvat Xiu and Ahziyah Xiu respectively on this tree. 

3The writer’s attention was first called to this passage in 1918 by Don Juan Martinez y Hernandez, and sub- 
sequently by Mr. William Gates, the translation above having been very kindly made for use here by the latter. 

4These figures are based on the assumption that the year began on 1 Pop, and not on 2 Pop asit is necessary to 


assume in order to have the Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac group retain their Old Empire month coefficients, 7. ¢., 2 
7, 12, and 17, and to use Goodman’s tables. 


480 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


day 10 Zip could and did occur in a current year 8 Cauac, named for its beginning 
day, but in an elapsing tun, 12 Ahau 2 Yaxkin, named for its closing day, which 
was still 72 days in the future when ro Zip was the current day. This change, the 
writer believes, was a very late one, certainly subsequent to the fall of Chichen Itza 
about 1200 A. D., and, as will appear later, was probably due to the introduction 
of Nahuan customs and practices to which that event gave rise. 

Our next account, that in VI, the version related by Bishop Cogolludo, is con- 
fused as to the date of this event, which he places in 1541 instead of 1536, although 
in order to do so he is obliged to change the correct date in his original source from 
1536 to 1541 (VII on page 472) and to ascribe a different object for the Xiu 
embassy to Nachi Cocom than that given in II. 

He makes this correction, he says, because he believes the death of Napot Xiu 
took place in 1541 as a result of an embassy sent by the Lord of Mani at Francisco 
Montejo’s request, for the purpose of urging Nachi Cocom, the Lord of Sotuta, 
to submit to the Spanish rule without further struggle, although in the same passage 
he is forced to admit a still earlier killing of a Lord of Mani by the Cocom as the 
cause of the long-standing hatred between these two great families: 


“Tn some ancient papers it is said that Tutul Xiu went personally to see the Cocomes, 
and [was] one of the beheaded men. These writings, which as I say are in extraordinary 
confusion and do not appear to merit credit, I mention in case somebody has credit for them, 
because there seems to have been a Tutul Xiu, whom the Cocomes killed in former times 
(from which circumstance arose the enmities between these families), and those of Mani 
did not conceal the death of their Principal Lord. They have the event painted as printed 
here [see figure 73], although the Indian who painted it erred in the Castillian numbers, 
putting down the year as [15] 36, which it could not be, as may be seen from what has been 
said, but that of [15] 41 which 1s now being related.”! (VI.) 


In a previous account, however, he gives the correct version with greater detail 
than any other source, although he makes the same fundamental mistake as above, 
in believing that this event took place in March or April, 1541, after the Lord of 
Mani visited Francisco Montejo at Merida on January 23, 1541,” to offer his sub- 
mission, instead of in 1536, and further, that it was a Xiu embassy to Nachi Cocom 
for the purpose of urging the latter to submit to the Spaniards that met this tragic 
ending, and not that it was the Xiu embassy which had been on its way to Chichen 
Itza, 5 years earlier, to offer sacrifices at the Sacred Cenote: 


“The ambassadors [of the Xiu] left for the Seigniory of Zotuta, and arriving at the 
capital, thus named, where resided the Cocomes, they [came] in to the presence of Nachi 
Cocom, Principal Lord of that territory; and they made known to him their embassy. Nachi 
Cocom replied that they should await his reply which he would give within four or five 
days. Meanwhile he commanded to assemble all the Lords (caziques) subject to him 
and consulted with them as to their views on what Tutul Xiu had sent the envoy to say; 
they determined upon an unworthy solution of the matter against all reason and justice, and 
an act of hatred (which has become) notoriously infamous. 

“They agreed to have a great hunt as if for a festival for the ambassadors, and their 
entertainment, and having withdrawn them upon this pretext from the populated district 
to the thick bush, they brought them to a place called Otzmal and there they feasted them 
for three days. For the end of the feast on the fourth day they gathered to eat under a 
great and beautiful tree, which in their language is called Yaa, and in Castillian sapote. 
Having continued there the dances and pleasures of the preceding days, the last act of the 
meal was to behead the ambassadors, violating the sacred security which was due to them 
as such. One of them, Ah Kin Chi, as a personage of superior intelligence, they saved that 
he might take the news to Tutul Xiu of what they had done to the others, and that this had 
been the reception of his embassy, abusing him as a great coward. 


1See Cogolludo, 1688, pp. 132, 133. 
*Cogolludo says (1688, p. 131) that the Lord of Mani stayed with Montejo at Merida for 60 days, i.¢., until 
March 23. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 48I 


“Their barbarous cruelty did not pardon even the survivor, though they spared his life, 
for they put out his eyes with an arrow, and then four captains of Nachi Cocom conducted 
him to the territory of Tutul Xiu, where they left him with all prudence, and returned to 
their own country. The miserable man, thus left alone, gave loud cries that perchance 
someone might hear him and come to his relief. It so fell out that some Indians heard him 
and discovered Ah Kin Chi in the lamentable condition referred to; and being brought to 
the presence of Tutul Xiu he gave the news of the grievous tragedy which had befallen his 
ambassadors.’ (VI.) 


Mention of Otzmal as the place where the massacre occurred, which is the 
same name as that given in the Xiu family papers to the place where the Xiu ruler 
was killed in 1536, serves further to establish Cogolludo’s mistake, not only as to the 
motive of this embassy, but also as to the date upon which it took place. And 
finally, the identity of the persons who he states visited Montejo in 1541, with those 
who, he says, were slain at Otzmal in 1536, as given in VII, proves his error. 

Compare the following list of the alleged visitors to Montejo on January 23 
1541, with the names of the slain Xiu chieftains as given in our source VII (see 
figure 73), and the two groups of men will be found to be identical: 


“Accompanying Tutul Xiu came other chieftains (Caziques) his vassals, whose names I 
find in a relation written by an Indian [presumably the drawing he publishes, see figure 73], 
which are the following: Ah Na Poot Xiu, son of Tutul Xiu, Ah Ziyah Governor Priest, 
Ah Kin Chi [probably the same as Ah-Ziyah Napuc Chi in V]: these they say were the lieu- 
tenants of Tutul Xiu in the capital of Mani. Yi Ban Can, Governor of the town of Tekit; 
Pacab, Governor of Oxcutzcab; Kan Caba [governor] of that of Panabchen, which today is 
depopulated; Kupul of Zacalum; Nauat of Teab; Vluac Chan Cauich, it is not said where; 
Zon Ceh of Pencuyut; Ahau Tuyu of Muna; Xul Cumche of Tipi Kal, Tucuch of Mama, Zit 
Couat of Chumayel.’? (VI.) 


There are just 13 individuals enumerated here, and a comparison of these 
names (without the addition of their corresponding towns) with those in figure 73, 
will show that the two lists are identical, and Cogolludo’s naive admission that the 
Indian painting actually had on it the year 1536 instead of 1541, to which date he 
believed it referred, establishes beyond all doubt his twofold error in this matter. 

Cogolludo also appears to be responsible for introducing the anecdote of the 
blinded Ah Kin Chi into the story of the Otzmal tragedy, probably through confus- 
ing it with the blinding of the three Xiu envoys to Nachi Cocom by Ah Cuat Cocom 
some time after January 1541. ‘The latter incident is given by [ as follows: 

“Thus the Spaniards passed and arrived at Mani, to Tutulxiu, and then were appointed 
the chief Ikeb, the chief Caixicum and the chief Chuc to go to invite Ah Cuat Cocom. They 
were at first taken and placed in a cave by his followers: then their eyes were put out in that 
great cave of weasels, and there was not one who did not have his eyes put out in the cave 
of weasels; their eyes were put out and they were given the road to go groping to the Ade- 
lantado at Mani; and thus returned those who were cast out of the town of Cuat Cocom. 
Then Ah Naum Pech rose up with both of them and came to Ah Cuat Cocom; when they 
arrived he [probably Nachi Cocom] said to Ah Naum Pech that he had not seen nor heard of 
it; he said he had gone to Chichen Itza, and he came promptly to the towns with the Pechs, 
and they arrived at Mani to deliver up promptly (the offenders); and the Cocom said he 
had not witnessed what had happened in his village, and he would give permission that they 
should be taken who had done it.’” 


So far as the writer has been able to ascertain, the above incident 1s the only 
other reference to blinded envoys anywhere in the early authorities, either native or 





1Cogolludo, 1688, pp. 131, 132. *Jbid., pp. 130, 131. 
aBrinton, 1882, pp. 237, 238. Brinton (ibid, p. 258) was the first to point out that Cogolludo may have been 


confused as to the details of this incident; and subsequently he suggests that the natives, who explained source VII 
to the Bishop as a representation of the Otzmal massacre, deceived him as to its true meaning, which is that it 
represents a katun-wheel. See Brinton, 1882), p. 15 of the reprint by the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of 


Philadelphia. 


482 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Spanish, and Cogolludo’s error here as to the number of men slain, their names and 
the date, is clearly proved by V. 

Moreover, this Indian painting figured by Cogolludo is capable of a very differ- 
ent interpretation from that given above. In the first place, it will be remembered 
that in V only 5 men are mentioned as having been slain at Otzmal, whereas Cogol- 
ludo gives the number as 12; and again, in V, two are said to have escaped, whereas 
Cogolludo gives but one. Further, the only man who all agree was killed was Napot 
or Na Poot Xiu, V giving Ah Ziyah Napuc Chi as also being among the slain, and 
VI and VII giving Ah Ziyah, governor-priest Ah Kin Chi, as the one whose He was 
spared but whose eyes were put out. The names of the other eleven men given by 
VI and VII which VI says were killed at the same time, are mentioned nowhere else, 
neither as dead nor alive, in connection with this incident. 

In a document of 1557’ concerning a meeting of certain eastern and western 
Maya chieftains at Mani in that year to settle the division of the land, a Don 
Francisco Pacab is mentioned as governor of Oxkutzcab at that time, athonen he 
may well be a different Pacab from the one Cogolludo says was killed at Otzmal. 
Again, in a document of 1556,2 a Don Gonzalo Tuyt is given as governor of Tixcacal- 
tuyu. Finally, the number of heads in this painting, 13, is in itself a highly suspicious 
circumstance, as will appear presently. 

If this painting does not represent the massacre of the Xiu pilgrims at Otzmal 
in 1536, what then does it represent? Brinton first suggested* that it may be simply 
a katun-wheel like a number of others figured in the Books of Chilan Balam;* and 
Gates has recently called the writer’s attention to the fact that the 13 names given 
in VII are identical with those applied to a series of 13 katuns in the Books of Chilan 
Balam of Kaua and Mani. 

The writer had already examined the Book of Chilan Balam of Kaua in Merida 
in 1913 and found this to be the case, and recently, through the kindness of Doctor 
Gordon, of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, he was permitted to 
consult Berendt’s copy of the Pio Perez copy of the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani. 

This series of 13 katuns in the Kaua manuscript begins with a Katun 3 Ahau, 
to which the name Ah Napot Xiu is attached, and although the corresponding 
series in the Mani manuscript begins with Katun 11 Ahau, the names attached to 
the different katuns are the same as in the Kaua series, as the following list will 
show: 


Book oF CuiLan Batam oF Kava. Book oF CuILAN BaLam oF Mant. 
Page cxix, Katun 3 Ahau. Ah Napot Xiu, its name. Ah Napot Xiu. 
cxix, Katun 1 Ahau. Zonceh, its name. Zoon Ceeh. 
exx, Katun 12 Ahau. Ahau tuyu, its name. Ahau Tuyu. 
cxx, Katun 10 Ahau. Xul cum chem, its name. Xul Kum Chan. 
cxx, Katun 8 Ahau. Tu Cuch, its name. Tucuch. 
cxxi, Katun 6 Ahau. Cit Couat Chumayel, its name. Cit Couat Chumayel. 
cxxi, Katun 4 Ahau. Uluac chan, its name. Uluuac Chan. 
exxl, Katun 2 Ahau. Nauat, its name. Nauat. 
exxil, Katun 13 Ahau. Ah kinchy cobaa, its name. Kinchil Coba. 
exxil, Katun 11 Ahau. Yiban caan, its name. Yiban can. 
cxxil, Katun g Ahau. Pacaab, its name. Pacab. 
exxill, Katun 7 Ahau. Kan cabaa, i its name. Kan caba. 
exxill, Katun 5 Ahau. Kupul, its name. Kupul. 


A comparison of these names with those in figure 73 will disclose the fact that 
the three lists are identical, save only for minor orthographic changes. Commenc- 
ing with Ah Na Pot Xiu in figure 73 and passing in a sinistral circuit from head to 


1See Stephens, 1843, vol. 11, pp. 266, 267. 2See ibid., p. 268. 
3See Brinton, 18825, p. 15. 4See Bowditch, 1910, figures 60, 63, 64. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 483> 


head, the three lists follow the same order for eight names. The ninth in figure 73 is 
Kupul, but the ninth in the Kaua and Mani series is Ah kinchy cobaa or Kinchil 
Coba. This latter is undoubtedly the Ah Kin Chi of figure 73, just to the right 
of Ah Napot Xiu, and beginning here again in a dextral circuit, the names in figure 
73 repeat the order in the Kaua and Mani series for the remaining five names. 

And as a final proof that the Kaua and Mani series were either copied directly 
from VII or vice versa, or that all three are copies of the same original, Gates has 
pointed out to the writer that it is Ah Kin Chi (Ah kinchy cobaa and Kinchil Coba 
in the Kaua and Mani series respectively) in all three who has an arrow piercing his 
head, and further, that Ah Kin Chi and Cit Couat Chumayel are the only two 
beardless heads of the thirteen in all three series. Indeed, whatever may be the 
interpretation of VII, it is obvious that all three of these series of heads are copies 
either of the same original or of one another. 

What then is the true explanation of this picture? Is it a representation of the 
Otzmal tragedy as claimed by Cogolludo and Stephens, or is it simply a katun-wheel 
from which the coefficients of the days Ahau have been omitted, the heads them- 
selves being the day-sign? Was Cogolludo deceived by his native informants, 
or were they themselves in ignorance of the true nature of this picture when they 
told him it represented the men slain at Otzmal? 

The writer inclines to the belief that it was a katun-wheel, for the following 
reasons: 

(1) There are exactly 13 heads in this picture, the same as the number of katuns in a 
katun-wheel. 

(2) Except for the omission of the 13 coefficients of the day Ahau, it resembles other 
known katun-wheels. 

(3) Cogolludo interprets the head with the arrow piercing it as indicating that Ah Kin 
Chi was spared to carry the tidings of the massacre to Mani, whereas the Xiu’s own version 
of the story indicates that Ah Ziyah Napuc Chi, probably the same individual, was also 
among those slain, and that the two who escaped were Nahau Veeh and Napot Covoh. 

(4) The dissimilarity in the number as well as in the names of the slain men, the Xiu 
record giving 5 and the picture in Cogolludo 12; and omitting Ah Napot Xiu and Ah Ziyah 
Napuc Chi, the remaining 3 names in the Xiu version bear no resemblance to any of the 
remaining II.names in the picture. 

But that the natives of Mani deliberately deceived Cogolludo, when he saw 
this painting about 1650, as Brinton suggests, appears more doubtful. The 
writer is more inclined to believe that even by the middle of the seventeenth century, 
so much of the ancient learning had been lost, that its real significance as repre- 
senting a katun-wheel was unknown; and the omission of the day-sign coefficients 
and the presence of Napot Xiu’s name were interpreted as indicating that it was a 
representation of the Otzmal massacre. Finally, by the time Stephens saw it, two 
centuries later, its true nature had been entirely forgotten, and the symbolic tree in 
the center had become the famous sapote-tree at Otzmal, under which the massacre 
is said to have taken place. 

Weighing all the evidence, it appears probable that this picture (VII) was 
possibly intended for a katun-wheel, but in some unaccountable way the coefficients 
of the day-signs Ahau were omitted, and instead, a number of names were attached 
to them, among others those of two of the men slain at Otzmal. 

If the sequence started with the katun to which Napot Xiu’s name 1s attached 
and the direction of reading is sinistral, then the last katun will be that to which 
Ah Kin Chi’s name is attached, and whose head is pierced by an arrow. On the 
assumption that this represents a katun-wheel, this arrow might be interpreted as 
indicating that the circuit of the katun-wheel had completed itself with this katun, 
and was about to start anew, 7. ¢., the uud katun, 


484 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


It is dificult to understand how the names of actual historical characters, such 
as Ah Napot Xiu and Ah Ziyah Napuc Chi are known to have been, should ever 
have become associated with specific katuns at all; and even granting the propriety 
of such an association, why Ah Napot Xiu’s name should have been selected for 
association with a katun (3 Ahau) which ended a century after his death is even 
more inexplicable, and yet such is the case in both the Kaua and Mani series. 

There are repeated instances both in the u kahlay katunob and in these 13 
katun-series in the Books of Chilan Balam of Mani, Tizimin, Chumayel, and Kaua, 
where the names of towns are associated with the different katuns, but never those 
of individuals. However, although it is impossible to give a satisfactory explana- 
tion of this unique phenomenon at this time, it really matters little in the present 
connection whether this picture represents a katun-wheel or the Xiu leaders slain 
at Otzmal in 1536, since this source unmistakably associates the year 1536 with Ah 
Napot Xiu’s name, thanks to Cogolludo’s naive attempt in his accompanying 
description to correct that year to 1541, and in Event C this association is the all- 
important point. Therefore VII will be used here only as indicating that Ah Napot 
. Xiu died in 1536. 

Returning to the consideration of this event, the next version of it, that in IX, 
is the first of the u kahlay katunob accounts which gives the name of the water- 
bringer as Napot Xiu. 

“{Katun] 13 Ahau; the water-bringer died the sixth year; the count of the years was 


toward the east. Pop began on 4 Kan to the east, 18 Zip, 9 Imix was the day on which the 
water-bringer Napot Xiu died, in the year of our Lord 158.2. (IX.) 


This account is very like IT and III, except that it gives the year 158. In view 
of the fact that all the other sources agree so unanimously that this event happened 
in 1536, we are doubtless justified in regarding 158 as incorrect, and indeed, as it 
stands, it is incomplete. 

Our next version, that in X, is the only one of all the sources that is in disagree- 
ment as to the katun in which this event took place, III, IV, and IX actually stating 
and I, II, and V implying that the year 1536 fell in a Katun 13 Ahau: 


“(Katun] 11 Ahau. In the time of its beginning the stone of Coloxpeten was taken; 
in this katun died the water-bringer Napot Xiu, in the first tun of [Katun] 11 Ahau.’? (X.) 


The writer believes this discrepancy may be satisfactorily explained without 
violence either to the original or to the credulity of the reader. It will be noted in 
the foregoing passage that this event 1s said to have taken place in the first tun of 
Katun 11 Ahau. 

It will be remembered that under Event B the first tun of this katun could 
have begun no earlier than 1536.716, and no later than 1537.089 (1. ¢., the days fol- 
lowing those between which the preceding katun could have ended). Further, ac- 
cording to III, IV, and LX, Event C took place on the day 18 Zip, and according to 
V on the day 10 Zip. Now, even although Landa wrote between 1561 and 1566, 
we have seen he probably received his information about the calendar in 1553, as 
indicated by the fact that the specimen year he gives is a 12 Kan year, and if 12 
Kan fell on July 16 in 1553, then 18 Zip would have fallen on September 15 in 1536 
and 10 Zip on September 7,° that is 1536.707 and 1536.685 respectively. 





‘Brinton, 1882, pp. 161, 162, translation corrected by the writer. 

2Ibid., p.-171. 

8If the Maya year began on July 16 in 1553, which seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of the fact 
that Landa gives 12 Kan as his specimen year, then in 1536, because of the leap years, the beginning would have 
fallen on July 20, and 18 Zip and 10 Zip, the 58th and soth days of the Maya year respectively, assuming it to have 
begun on 1 Pop (7. ¢., with the Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac year-bearers), would have fallen on September 15 and 
7 respectively. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 485 


These dates for Napot Xiu’s death are so close to the end of Katun 13 Ahau, 
about a third of a year off at the most, that if the author of the original wu kahlay 
katunob from which Juan Josef Hoil made his redaction in 1782 (X) had been at all 
confused as to the exact date of that event, except that it occurred either in the 
latter part of 1536 or early in 1537, he might easily have referred it to the first tun 
of Katun 11 Ahau instead of to the /ast tun of Katun 13 Ahau. The leeway here is 
so short, less than 5 months, that the writer believes it satisfactorily explains this 
single disagreement in ail the native sources as to the name of the katun in which 
any one of our seven events fell. 

Our last source treating of Event C is page 85! of the Book of Chilan Balam of 
Chumayel (XII). Here, under date of the year 1537, erroneously assigned to the 
year-bearer 9 Cauac,? we find an important entry bearing upon this event, wherein 
mention is twice made of the fact that it was the Xiu ruler (halach vinic) who had 
been killed, his name being given once as Ah Tutul Xiu, and the place of his death 
as Otzomal. Ah Tutul Xiu is nothing more than The Tutul Xiu, using the definite 
article as in The Campbell or The MacNaughton in speaking of the heads of those 
Scottish clans, a fact further indicated by reference to the dead man as the halach 
vinic or ruler. 


“ce 


1537. 9 Cauac its day-name, it was that the nobles gathered at the town of Mani 
for full discussion about the reception of the coming strangers [7. ¢., the Spaniards] to the 
country because of the fact that their ruler (halach vinic) had been killed. These were 
their names: Ah-moo Chan Xiu,’ Nahaues, Ahtz’un Chinab, Napoot Cupul, Napot Che, 
Nabatun Ytza, the priest Evan from Cocel; Nachan Uc, who came from T7z’ibilkal, the 
priest Ucan, who came from Ekob, Nachi Uc, the herald Koh, Nachan Motul, Nahau Coyi; 
these the grandees talked of receiving the strangers to the town because the ruler (halach 


vinic) of the city, Ah Tutul Xiu, had been killed at Otzomal.” 


The strangers here referred to are the Spaniards who, under Francisco Montejo 
the younger, had landed at Champoton in 1537 in their second attempt to conquer 
the country, the first, which lasted from 1527 to 1535, having failed.* 

Summarizing the foregoing data as to Event C, the following conclusions appear 
to be reasonably certain: 


(1) That it was a pilgrimage to Chichen Itza for the purpose of offering human sacri- 
fices, slaves of both sexes, to the rain deities at the Sacred Cenote, in order that the drought 
from which the whole country was suffering at the time might cease. Actually stated in II, 
and implied in the word ahpula, ahpulha, or ahpulhaob (plural), water-bringer, in III, IV, 
Pix, and X. 

(2) That it took place in 1536. Actually stated in III, IV, V, and VII, and stated in 
II to have taken place between the end of the first Spanish entry in 1535 and the beginning 
of the second in 1537; and stated in XII to have taken place prior to 1537. 

(3) That it took place at Otzmal. Actually stated in V, VI, and XII, and stated by II 
to have taken place in the territory of the Cocom. 

(4) That the leader of the pilgrimage was Napot Xiu. Actually stated in VII, IX, 
and X, and stated in V and XII that it was the leader or ruler of the Tutul Xiu, doubtless 
the same individual. dE 

(s) That the year 1536 fell in a Katun13 Ahau. Actually stated in IIT and IV, implied 
in I, II, and V, and stated in X that Event C took place in the first tun of a Katun 11 Ahau. 


The foregoing points appear to be reasonably clear, although the existence of 
certain contradictory data as to the Christian year, katun, tun, and year-bearer, 
must be admitted. ; 





1$ee Gordon, 1913, plate 85. The writer is indebted to Mr. Gates for the above translation of this passage. 

2A will be seen later (pages 495-497), this is probably an error either for 8 Cauac or 9 Kan. 

8This individual appears on the genealogical tree in the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab as a great-great grandson 
of the first Lord of Mani. 

4Cogolludo, 1688, pp. 74, 94, and 114. 


486 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


As regards the Christian year, however, there can be little doubt. Cogolludo’s 
statement that Event C took place in 1541, in spite of the fact that he tells us his 
original source (VII) had 1536, has been shown to be an error; and the incomplete 
date 158 in LX, which may mean anything, can hardly be permitted to weigh 
against the explicit statements of III, IV, V, and VII, especially when the latter 
are all in agreement, and the indirect statements of II and XII. 

As regards the katun in which Event C took place, there is only one dissenting 
source, namely X, which states that it occurred in the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau 
instead of in Katun 13 Ahau. It has been explained already that according to 
Event B, the end of Katun 13 Ahau came so near the time when Napot Xiu died 
that confusion as to which katun, whether 13 Ahau or 11 Ahau, he really had died 
in, may very well have existed, which would explain the difference noted above in 
X. A few days only at the right point would make the difference between the 
last tun of Katun 13 Ahau and the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau. 

When we come down to such small divisions as the tun, and the year-bearer, 
however, we encounter contradictions even within the same chronicle which are 
_ irreconcilable. Fortunately, the contradictory evidence as to the tun is confined 
to three sources, III, IV, and LX, of which the first two are probably copies of the 
same original. It must be admitted, however, that these three statements, which 
agree with each other in regard to Event C, are in flat contradiction to the evidence 
supplied by Event B and by X as regards Event C, and that they are the most 
serious obstacles in the way of making all the sources harmonize. 

All three state that when Napot Xiu died, 6 tuns were still lacking before the 
end of Katun 13 Ahau, which would place the end of Katun 13 Ahau in 1541 or 
1542. Bishop Landa also gives some other slight evidence in support of such a 
correlation. As will be seen under Event D, he states that Merida was founded at 
the very beginning of Katun 11 Ahau, the Christian year being 1542. 

The year-bearer 4 Kan mentioned in III, IV, and [X as that of the Maya year 
in which 1536 fell disagrees with the series of year-bearers to which practically all 
the other sources conform, and thus brings further discredit upon these more de- 
tailed statements in these three entries. This evidence as to the year-bearers will 
be presented later, but it may be noted here that all the early sources except III, 
IV, LX, and XII agree in assigning the year-bearer 8 Cauac to the Maya year which 
ran from July 20, 1536, to July 19, 1537.!_ III, IV, and LX, on the other hand, 
assign the year-bearer 4 Kan to this same 365-day period, and XII, the year-bearer 
9 Cauac. 

The nearest occurrence of a year 4 Kan in the usual system to the year 
1536 was 9 years later, from July 18, 1545, to July 17, 1546, a decade after the 
death of Napot Xiu; and of a year 9 Cauac, 12 years earlier, from July 23, 1524, to 
Julywayesas: 

The evidence as to the year-bearers in all the early sources save these four is 
unanimous, as will appear later. ‘This fact, coupled with the contradictions in- 
volved in accepting the statement that the end of Katun 13 Ahau was still 6 tuns off 
in 1536, justifies us fully in rejecting these minor details in regard to Event C in III, 
IV, and IX, which are contradicted so flatly by other sources equally if not more 
reputable, and in accepting only the following more general points upon which the 
greater number agree outright, and the single disagreement therewith in X being 
capable of reduction, perhaps to a matter of a few days. ‘These general points are: 


(1) That Event C took place in the year 1536. 
(2) That Event C took place in a Katun 13 Ahau. 


1Owing to the fact that every fourth year in the Christian calendar was a bissextile year, the beginning of the 
Maya year shifted one day forward in the Christian year for each leap-year. The several correlations of spe- 
cific days of the Christian year with specific days of the Maya haab given here, are based upon Landa’s statement 
that 1 Pop fell on July 16, which the other sources indicate occurred in 1553. The writer has little confidence 
in this correlation as being exact to the day, however. See page 533, note I. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 487 


Both of these agree with Events A and B already described. 

A brief résumé of what appears to have happened, based upon the foregoing 
evidence, follows. Bishop Landa tells us that in the fourteenth century and the 
early part of the fifteenth century the rulers of Mayapan, the Cocom family, became 
increasingly oppressive and tyrannical, to the point that had it not been for the 
fear of their Mexican mercenaries, whom they appear to have maintained ever since 
the fall of Chichen Itza about the beginning of the thirteenth century, the other 
Maya chieftains would have risen against them. 

About the beginning or middle of the fourth decade of the fifteenth century, 
some time during Katun 8 Ahau (1438-1458, according to the correlation suggested 
here), their rule became so burdensome that the Maya finally banded themselves 
together under the leadership of the Tutul Xiu, then reigning at Uxmal,! and attack- 
ing Mayapan, sacked the city and slew all the members of the ruling family save 
only one son, who was absent from the capital at the time. ‘This son was later 
permitted to move the remnant of his people to Tibulon and there to found a new 
capital, which became the province of Sotuta.2 This event profoundly affected the 
whole peninsula and brought about the abandonment of all the larger cities. The 
Xiu withdrew from Uxmal and founded a new capital at Mani. The Chel removed 
to Tikoch, while the Itza actually left the country, migrating southward to Peten, 
and establishing themselves around Lake Peten Itza, probably a former home of 
the tribe eight centuries earlier under the Old Empire.’ 

Landa says the hatred engendered by this war lasted for many years and gave 
rise to constant conflicts, and it supplies for us the direct historical cause of the 
tragedy of 1536. 

The Cocom had never forgiven the Xiu for the leading part they had played 
in their downfall, and, Indian-like, had bided their time to execute a commensurate 
revenge. In 1535, after the failure of the first attempt to conquer Yucatan and the 
Spaniards had withdrawn, Landa tells us there was a great drought followed by a 
greater famine, until the Maya were driven to eating even the bark of trees. 

In this national extremity Napot Xiu, then Lord of Mani, thinking the 
ancient enmities between his people and the Cocom might be suspended, asked of 
Nachi Cocom, then ruling at Sotuta, permission to pass through the Cocom terri- 
tories on a pilgrimage to Chichen Itza for the purpose of offering sacrifices at the 
Sacred Cenote to appease the offended rain deities.*| “This provided the opportunity 
the Cocom had long awaited. Permission was given, but only to further their 
long-deferred and sinister designs. The embassy was received with feasts, and 
after three days of entertainment, when any suspicions the Xiu pilgrims might 
have entertained had been entirely dissipated, and they were correspondingly off 
their guard, the Cocom fell upon them and murdered all save one or two who either 
escaped or were spared to carry tidings of the massacre to Mani. ‘This event, we 
have seen, took place at Otzmal in the Cocom seigniory in 1536. 

There has been some doubt as to whether Napot Xiu was the ruler of Mani, 
or only one of the higher Xiu officials, but the Xiu family papers (V) clearly state he 
was the leader, ahiz’un, and page 85 from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel 
(XII) twice refers to him as the ruler, halach vinic. 

These, then, seem to be the principal facts regarding this important event, 
which was recorded by so many of the early authorities, and which has such an 
important bearing on the correlation problem. 





1See note 2, page 470. *Landa, 1881, p. 75. 

8The writer found two stelz at Flores in 1915 recording the dates 10.1.0.0.0 and 10.2.0.0.0, which must 
have come from nearby. See Morley, 19154, pp. 345-346. ; 

4Guthe has suggested that choice of the year 1536 for this pilgrimage may have arisen from the desire to 
have the sacrifices contemplated coincide with the ending of the current katun (13 Ahau), always an unusually 
auspicious time from the Maya point of view. 


488 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Event D. 


The date of this event, the foundation of the city of Merida, the Spanish 
capital of Yucatan, is happily exactly fixed in our own chronology by VI as having 
taken place on January 6, 1542. But even here we must allow ourselves some 
leeway, since the Spaniards had arrived at Ichcansihoo, or Tihoo or T’ho, the site 
of the new capital, about a year earlier, Francisco Montejo having received the 
Lord of Mani there on the day of San Idefonso, January 23, 1541, but not having 
perfected his hold on the region until he had defeated a coalition of eastern Maya 
chieftains near there on June 11, 1541. The formal act of incorporation of the 
municipality, however, was not drawn up until January 6 of the following year: 


“After this event [the battle of June 11] for all that year they [the Spaniards] occupied 
themselves in conciliating all the neighboring chieftains (cazzques), and when it seemed that 
the latter were subjected and tractable, and the year [15]42 having begun, they resolved to 
initiate the foundation of the City, by finding the site with the qualifications which the 
instructions had demanded. A conference was held and all agreed upon this day of the 
Feast of the Holy Kings, the 6th of January of the said year of 1542.’! (VI.) 


This event is also given by Source I as follows: 


“In the year 1542 the Spaniards settled the territory of Merida, . . . . the third time 
they arrived they settled permanently, in the year 1542 they settled permanently in the 
territory of Merida, 13 Kan being the year-bearer according to the Maya reckoning.’”? 1.) 


In II the notice of this event seems to refer to the preliminary occupation of the 
site of Merida about a month after the battle of June 11, 1541, rather than to the 
formal act of foundation on January 6, 1542: 


“The Indians say, for example, that the Spaniards had just arrived at Merida in the 
year of the Nativity of our Lord, 1541, which was precisely the first year of the age of 11 
Ahau, which is that where the cross is [reference to a drawing of a katun-wheel in the text] 
and they arrived the same month of Pop which is the first month of their year.’ (II.) 


The four native chronicles already quoted, although they do not give the date 
in Christian chronology, are all in satisfactory agreement as to the katun. Says 
III in this connection: 


“The count of [Katun] 11 Ahau was not ended when the Spaniards, mighty men, arrived 
from the east, they came, they arrived here in this land.’* (II1.) 


The wording of IV is almost identical: 


“{Katun] 11 Ahau; foreigners arrived—mighty men from the east; they came, they 


arrived here in this land.’ (IV.) 


In LX the additional fact that the Spaniards brought the sickness, is recorded: 


“{Katun] 11 Ahau; the mighty men came from the East; they brought the sickness.’ 
(IX.) 


1Cogolludo, 1688, p. 136. He also gives the text of the act and a list of the first officers of the municipality. 
The writer has followed Cogolludo for the other dates of this second entry of the Spaniards under Francisco 
Montejo the younger, as follows: 1537 for the arrival at Champoton (ibid., p. 114), 1540 for the foundation of the 
Villa of Campeche (bid., p. 128), 1540 (late in the year) for the arrival at Merida (ibid.), January 23, 1541, for the 
visit of the Lord of Mani at Merida (ibid., p. 130), June 11, 1541, for the victory over the coalition of eastern Maya 
chieftains near Merida (ibid., p. 136), and January 6, 1542, for the foundation of Merida (ibid.). Molina Solis 
places the arrival at Champoton on Christmas Eve, 1540 (1896, p. 646, note 1), the visit of Tutul Xiu to Merida 
on January 23, 1542 (ibid., p. 646), and the defeat of the Eastern Maya, on June 11, 1542 (ibid., pp. 654, 655), on 
the authority of the Probanza of Garcia de Medina, which gives a report by Hernando Munoz Zapata, Encomendero 
of Oxkutzcab, of February 21, 1581. Munoz Zapata states that Montejo disembarked at Champoton on December 
24, 1540, and reached Campeche before the end of the year, 7. ¢., within a week, but this disagrees with Nakuk 
Pech, who says “they remained in Champoton 6 years, when they went forth to Campeche” (Brinton, 1882, p. 
218). Nakuk Pech heze agrees more nearly with Cogolludo, who places the stay at Champoton at 4 years, 1537 
to 1540. ‘The point is not of especial importance in the present connection, since Molina Solis accepts Cogulludo’s 
date for the foundation of Merida as January 6, 1542 (Molina Solis, op. cit., p. 633), that is, for Event D. 

2Brinton, 1882, p. 228. 3Landa, 1881, p. 103. 4Brinton, 1882, p. 104. *Lbid., p. 149. *Jbid., p. 162. 





| 





CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 489 


In addition to the katun, the specific tun is also given in X: 


“Tt was also in this katun [Katun 11 Ahau] that the Spaniards first arrived here in this 
land, in the seventh year of Katun 11 Ahau.”! (X.) 


In V there is the following entry: 


“1542 year 13 Kan on the first of Pop [1. ¢., the year July 1541 to July 1542]; the Spaniards 
founded and settled Merida; the tributes of the province began by the aid of those of Mani, 
§ Ahau on 17 Izec.”’ (V.) 


Finally, in XII we have both the Christian year and the katun given: 


“‘Katun 13 Ahau first appeared the ships of the strangers at Campeche, 1541 the year 
was called when the priests of the faith brought Christianity to the Maya men, when the 
land was founded, already by Cuzamil, in mid-year were they, when they arrived at port in 
the west, and those of the west introduced the tribute. 

In 1542 was founded the district ti-Hoo, Ichcanzihoo [Merida], in Katun 11 Ahau, and 
[there came] first the ruler Don Francisco Montejo, the Admiral, and the giving of estates 
to the strangers, the mighty men, in the year 1542, and the tribute began.” (XII.) 


As regards Event D, we find unanimous agreement both as to the year and the 
katun in which it occurred, from which we may conclude: 


(1) That it took place on January 6, 1542, in some sources only the year being given. 
(2) That it took place in Katun 11 Ahau. 


When we come tothe tun, however, we again find minor discrepancies. Landa’s 
statement that it was in the first tun, while agreeing roughly with III, IV, and IX 
as regards Event C already noted, disagrees with everything else. The statement 
in X, however, that it was in the seventh tun is very close to the point of contact 
established under I in Event B, since, according to this correlation, January 6, 
1542, 1.¢., 1542.016, fell in the sixth tun instead of the seventh (see page 477). 
This is true because under this correlation the sixth tun of Katun 11 Ahau began 
anywhere from 1541.641 to 1542.014 and ended anywhere from 1542.627 to 1543.000. 

Although no katun-ending is given in V, the only tun-ending of the 13 there 
recorded (see page 507) which could have been a katun-ending as well, is Tun 13 
Ahau 7 Xul, which, on the assumption that the 1st of Pop began on July 16, 1553, 
ended on November 3, 1539, 1. ¢., 1539-841, and according to V, therefore, the 
foundation of Merida took place in the third tun of Katun 11 Ahau, 1. ¢., between 
1541.813 and 1542.799. 

As in the case of Event C, we again have a satisfactory unanimity of opinion 
as to the katun and year of the event, but several contradictory statements as to 
the specific tun in which it occurred. ‘This well illustrates the point made at the 
beginning of this Appendix, namely, that our sources agree if not pushed too far, 
but that when made to serve as the basis of a correlation to the day, irreconcilable 
differences are encountered between sources otherwise apparently equally worthy 
of credence. 

Event E. 

The next event upon which this correlation is based is the arrival of Bishop 
Francisco Toral in Yucatan, the first bishop of the diocese to take possession of the 
see, although the third that had been named thereto. 

This event the writer believes was taken by the natives as the official intro- 
duction of Christianity into the country, since in III, IV, and IX the Bishop’s 
arrival, the beginning of Christianity, and the occurrence of baptisms are all three 
mentioned in the same sentences, and referred therein to the same katun, namely, 


Katun 9 Ahau. 





1Brinton, 1882, p. 171. | 
2Gordon, 1913, plate 85. The writer is indebted to Mr. Gates for the above translation of this passage. 


490 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


This, of course, was not the first introduction of Christianity to the peninsula, 
the expeditions of Francisco Hernandez de Cordoba in 1517, Juan de Grijalva in 
1518, and Fernando Cortés in 1519 having all carried priests and having all touched 
at the mainland. Cogolludo states that no religious accompanied the first entry of 
Francisco Montejo in 1527 to 1535, although it would seem certain that at least a 
secular priest must have accompanied that expedition.! 

The first evangelical mission of the friars was under Father Jacobo de Testera 
and four companions, one of whom was Father Lorenzo de Bienvenida, in 1535. 

The next entry of the friars was some 4 or 5 years after the conquest, when a 
group of six headed by Father Luis de Villalpando and again including Father de 
Bienvenida, came in 1545 or 1546.° And finally, Landa himself had arrived in 1549, 
13 years prior to the first arrival of Bishop Toral in 1562. 

The Christian years 1544 and 1546, associated with the entries relating to the 
arrival of Bishop Toral in III, IV, and IX, are clearly confusions with the earlier 
entry of Father Villalpando, and according to no correlation could they have fallen 
in Katun g Ahau as stated. 

. The native authorities thus appear to have regarded the beginnings of Chris- 
tianity as having taken place with the arrival of the first bishop. The two entries 
in I concerning this event are very brief: 

“Tt was during [Katun] 9 Ahau that Christianity was introduced.’ 

“They were baptized by the first bishop to the Maya people, Don Francisco Toral; 


and when he baptized us, our father, the bishop, showed the images of the saints to all the 
villages.”’® (I.) 


The versions from III, IV, and IX are almost identical: 


“{Katun] 9 Ahau; Christianity began; baptism took place; also in this katun came the 
first bishop, Toroba by name; this was the year 1544.7 (III.) 

“{Katun] 9 Ahau; Christianity began; baptism took place; also in this katun came the 
first bishop Toral; the year which was passing was 1544.’° (IV.) 

“{Katun] 9 Ahau; Christianity began; baptism took place; also in this katun arrived 
bishop Toral here; also the hanging ceased in the year 1546.’ (IX.) 


The version in X is somewhat more explicit, the tun being given as usual: 


“{Katun] 9 Ahau; no stone was taken at this time; in this katun first came the bishop 
Brother Francisco Toral; he arrived in the sixth tun of Katun g Aha? 7x 


The date in Christian chronology of Event E is fixed by VI as having occurred 
in the year 1562: 


“The same year of [15]62 came to this province the Ge Bishop, who took possession 
of this Bishopric (although he was the third one to be presented, as has been said elsewhere). 
This was Don Fray Francisco Toral of the Seraphic Order of my father San Francisco.” 


(VI.) 
This event is mentioned only briefly in II: 


“In this time [not specified] there arrived at Campeche Father Francisco Toral, a Fran- 
ciscan friar, native of Ubeda, who had been for 20 years in Mexico, and who came as bishop 


of Yucatan. *o (1) 


1Cogolludo, 1688, p. 102. 

2Cogolludo (ibid. Ps 103) says that Lizana gives the year of raue de Testera’s entry as 1531, but that he 
does not believe this is correct. Molina Solis (1896, p. 524), says that Father de Testera arrived at Champoton 
on March 18, 1535, probably the correct date, since the Spaniards under Gongalo Nieto had withdrawn from Yuca- 
tan temporarily at the beginning of that year (Cogolludo, ibid., p. 94). 

SCogolludo, zbid., p. 242. In I the date of this event is given as 1545 (Brinton, 1882, p. 230), the list of the 
fathers who came being the same as in Cogolludo. 4Cogolludo, ibid., p. 268. 

5Brinton, 1882, p.216. %Ibid., pp. 233,234.  ‘Ibid.,p.104. *Ibid.,p.149. Jbid.,p.162.  °Jbid., p. 172. 

UCogolludo, 1688, p. 322. Landa, 1881, p. 79. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 491 


Finally, Molina Solis fixes the date of Toral’s arrival at Campeche in the first 
days of August 1562, and the day of his solemn entry into Merida as August 15, 
1562, although he gives no authority for either statement.! 

Eliminating the obviously incorrect years of 1544 and 1546 which accompany 
the passages describing this event in III, IV, and IX, it is fair to say that all of our 
sources are again in most satisfactory agreement, both as to the katun and the 
Christian year in which Event E occurred, there being perfect unanimity of record 
as to the following points: 


(1) That it took place in 1562. 
(2) That it took place in a Katun 9 Ahau. 


In only one source (X) is the tun also given, but this time it is found to agree 
with the correlation established under Event B. In this correlation the sixth tun 
of Katun 9 Ahau began somewhere between 1561.354 and 1561.727, and ended 
somewhere between 1562.340 and 1562.713. 

If, now, we accept Molina Solis’s statement that Event E took place some 
time early in August 1562, say from August I to 15, expressed decimally from 
1562.583 to 1562.622, and further, if we accept the statement in X that it took 
place in the sixth tun of Katun 9 Ahau, we can reduce the period where correlation 
is possible within the limits fixed by Events A, B, C, and D from four and a half 
months to one and a half months. ‘This is true because if the sixth tun of Katun 9 
Ahau starts any earlier than 1561.597, then its end will fall before 1562.583, the 
earliest possible date for Event E, according to Molina Solis, and Event E will not 
fall in the sixth tun of Katun 9 Ahau, as stated in X, but in the seventh tun. 

This reduction of the possible margin of correlation under Event B fits Events 
A, C, and D without violating any of those larger statements of fact upon which only 
this correlation is based, and gives for the period in which the end of Katun 13 Ahau 
could fall and yet agree with the details of Event FE, as given by Molina Solis and X, 
1536.956 to 1537.086, the final limit remaining unchanged. ‘These dates are 
between December 15, 1536, and February 1, 1537 inclusive, while Goodman, 
through a process he does not explain, states that Katun 11 Ahau among the 
Itza, Cocom, and Chel began on December 25, 1536,” 7. ¢., precisely within this 
same brief period. 


EvENT F. 


This event, the death of Bishop Landa, is given with absolute agreement in 
terms of the u kahlay katunob in III, IV, IX, and X, while VI fixes it in terms of 
Christian chronology: 


“Tn [Katun] 7 Ahau died the first bishop de Landa.’* (III.) 

“{Katun] 7 Ahau; bishop Landa died in this katun.’’* (IV.) 

“(Katun] 7 Ahau; bishop Landa died.’*® (IX.) 

“(Katun] 7 Ahau; no stone was taken; in this katun died Bishop Landa, then also came 
the bishop his successor.’® (X.) re 

“He [Bishop Landa] died on the 29th of April, 1579, with 38 years in Religion, 30 as 
minister and Apostle of this land, and 6 not completed in the possession of its bishopric, and 
the whole course of his life being 54 years.” (VI.) 


Here again we have unanimous agreement, the four native authorities all 
stating that Event F took place in a Katun 7 Ahau and Cogolludo giving not only 
the Christian year but the day and month as well—April 29, 1579, 1. ¢., 1579.326. 
en II cle ge oo he eel rey dha hi at a Aa lS 

1Molina Solis, 1904, pp. 66, 68. 2Goodman, 1905, p. 645. 
3Brinton, 1882, p. 104. s]bid., p. 149. 5Tbid., p. 162. 6] bid., p. 172, translation corrected by Gates. 
7Cogolludo, 1688, p. 362. 


492 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Event G: 


The last event in our list is by no means the least important, since it emanates 
from a branch of the Maya, the Itza, who had moved out of Yucatan nearly two 
centuries before it took place, but who had maintained, apparently unimpaired as 
we shall see, the chronological system in vogue in Yucatan at the time of their de- 
parture. The fact that the date of this closing event agrees with the dates of the 
other events, which had taken place from 39 to 107 years earlier in another region, 
is of itself excellent authentication of the uniformity and accuracy of the native 
chronology, even after the Spanish Conquest. 

Villagutierre Sotomayor, whose History of the Conquest of the Province of the 
Itza is the leading authority for its field (the conquest of the last independent group 
of the Maya), in the two following passages fixes the date of Father Fuensalida’s 
visit to Layasal, the capital of the Itza on Lake Peten Itza, in both Christian and 
Maya chronology, as follows: 


“Three or. four years later, while the year 1618 was already running its course, on the 
2sth of March, while Francisco Ramirez Briceho was governing in those provinces, a Pro- 
vincial Chapter of the Order of San Francisce was celebrated in the City of Merida, and in it, 
full of the Love of God, and of Charity in view of the Spiritual necessity of those Neighbors 
(although Pagans) [7. e., the Itza], offer was made to go and preach the Holy Evangel to the 
Itzaex by the Fathers Fray Bartolomé de Fuensalida and Fray Juan de Orbita, both Men 
of Learning and of consummate Virtue, Priests, and very intelligent Interpreters of that 
Maya language, natural to the Itzaex, as to all Yucatecans, which they (the Itza) had for- 
merly been.” 


And: 


“To this Canek replied: That the Time had not arrived, which his Ancient Priests had 
foretold unto him in which they were to put aside the adoration of the Gods; because the 
Age in which they were at this time was that which they called Oxahau, which means Third 
Age: (These Barbarians most assuredly count their Ages backwards or towards a determined 
number, which having been reached, they forget and return to the beginning of the count;? 
because when they withdrew from Yucatan, which was now going on for three hundred 
years, they said that it was the Eighth Age’ and that the time foretold unto them was not 
due to arrive so soon; and now they said that it was the Third Age, and that the time had 
not arrived.) And so they [the Itza] asked them [Padres Fuensalida and Orbita] to treat 
no more upon that matter for the time being, and that they withdraw to the Village of 
Tipu, and that on some other occasion they should go to that Isle to see them [the Itza].’”4 

'Villagutierre Sotomayor, 1701, pp. 83, 84. 

2This is a clumsy reference to the wus katun or doubling of the katuns, in which the 13 differently named 
katuns, i.e., 13 Ahau, 11 Ahau, 9 Ahau, etc., having finished a complete round, began another round. The katun 
with which the round of the 13 katuns closed was Katun 10 Ahau, and the new round began with 8 Ahau. 
The only reason the writer can suggest why this latter katun should have been chosen for this purpose is because 
the u kahlay katunob in the Mani and Tizimin manuscripts, which go back farther than the three from the Chu- 
mayel manuscript, both began with a Katun 8 Ahau, and further, as will appear later, in the correlation of the 
two chronologies suggested here, this katun is probably none other than g.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh, or the beginning 
of the cycle during which the Maya attained their first great cultural florescence. 

Brinton (1882, p. 85) gives two passages from the Codice Pérez which bear upon this matter, as follows: 
“At the last of Katun 10 Ahau is ended one doubling of the katun, and the return a second time of thirteen 
katuns is written on the face of the katun circle; one doubling of the katuns as it is called will then finish its course 
to begin again; and when it begins, it is written that another katun commences: when Katun 8 Ahau ends it has 
begun again [1.¢., the doubling begins with Katun 8 Ahau]” (Codice Pérez, p. 90). And again: “At the last of 
Katun 10 Ahau is ended the joining together of the 13 katuns, written on the face of the katun circle; one doub- 
ling of the katuns, as it is called, will then finish its course, and another katun will begin and will end as Katun 
8 Ahau; this begins a second time as it began and was then written” (Codice Pérez, p. 168). 

Curiously enough, after having made these clear translations, Brinton failed to apply them in his transla- 
tions of the chronicles themselves, for wherever the expression oxlahun uus u katunil (1. e., thirteen doubling back, 
the katun) occurs in the chronicles he invariably renders it as “the thirteen divisions of warriors,” thereby entirely 
changing the meaning of the original. 

8This is in most satisfactory agreement with the chronicles from the Books of Chilan Balam, four out of the 
five of which also state that the fall of Mayapan took place in a Katun 8 Ahau, 7. ¢., Villagutierre Sotomayor’s 
“Eighth Age.” 

*Villagutierre Sotomayor, op. cit., pp. 105, 106. 





CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 493 

These last two passages give us a seventh date fixed in the two chronologies, 
namely, that the year 1618 fell in a Katun 3 Ahau, which we shall presently see 
agrees with the best interpretation of the other six events. 


THE CORRELATION OF THE U KAHLAY KATUNOB AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 


Let us next examine the foregoing data and ascertain if it is possible to derive 
therefrom any correlation of the two chronologies which will not violate statements 
in one or other of our sources. These data indicate that: 

Event A, 1511 fell in a Katun 2 Ahau. 

Event B, the end of a Katun 2 Ahau fell in 1517. 

Event C, 1536 fell in a Katun 13 Ahau. 

Event D, January 6, 1542, fell in a Katun 11 Ahau. 

Event E, August 1 to 15, 1562, fell in a Katun 9 Ahau. 

Event F, April 29, 1579, fell in a Katun 7 Ahau. 

Event G, 1618 fell in a Katun 3 Ahau. 


The dates of these seven events cover a period of 107 years, being sufficiently 
scattered, ISII, 1517, 1536, 1542, 1562, 1579, and 1618—6, 19, 6, 20, 17, and 39 
years apart respectively—to furnish an exacting test of the accuracy of the corre- 
sponding correlation of Christian years and Maya katuns, and to establish a cor- 
relation of the two chronologies to at least within a year. Indeed, as regards the 


specific katuns in which these several Christian years fell there is all but unanimous 
agreement, as the following table will show:' 














Event A. Event C. Event D. Event E. Event F. Event G. 


Source. 













rt ett Bee Eh (od aaa id Katun 11 Ahau.} Katun 9 Ahau. 

Wn Belt aes OR ie Saher 6 he) |e Katun 11 Ahau. 
III... .| Katun 2 Ahau.| Katun 13 Ahau.}| Katun 11 Ahau.| Katung Ahau.| Katun 7 Ahau. 

IV....| Katun 2 Ahau.} Katun 13 Ahau.| Katun 11 Ahau.| Katung Ahau.} Katun 7 Ahau. 

Worsicwl BR eis eat ae Katun 13 Ahau.| Katun 11 Ahau. 

te eee OM eg or. tarn eee ed aes a fom e os deed ee [era aera beets. Katun 3 Ahau. 

IX....| Katun 2 Ahau.| Katun 13 Ahau.| Katun 11 Ahau.} Katung Ahau.| Katun 7 Ahau. 

3 tay eh ee ae Katun 11 Ahau.| Katun 11 Ahau.} Katung Ahau.| Katun 7 Ahau. 

(first tun). 

SRS toe WOR gee id eh ee rae ee Katun 11 Ahau. 


Katun 11 Ahau. 


Piece) elk o 4) Sisaa: «.:e 10), Ocopo se wie Be 16 0) Oa: +e eo Ale ose ie/i a 


The single entry which does not conform with the above correlation is the 
passage in X which assigns Event C to the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau instead of 


to Katun 13 Ahau as do the others. But even here it is the first tun of Katun 11 
Ahau, and, as already pointed out, a difference of a few days at the close of 1536 
or early in 1537 would have thrown Event C from the /Jast tun of Katun 13 Ahau 
into the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau. In view of all the other evidence as to this 
event, as well as to all the other events in all the other sources, the writer feels it 
is perfectly safe to accept the foregoing points of contact between the u kahlay 
katunob and Christian chronology as correct. 

Of course, on the basis of Event B alone, it is possible to reach a correlation 
correct to within a year, since it states that a katun, which we have seen could only 
have been Katun 2 Ahau, came to an end some time during 1517; but even omitting 
this for the moment, the other six events give a correlation correct to within less 











1Event B is omitted only because on its face it fixes the correlation of the wu kahlay katunob and Christian 
chronology toa year. It also agrees with the other six events. 


494 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


than 4 years. For if Katun 2 Ahau is made to end any later than 1520.186, Event 
F (1579.326) can not fall in Katun 7 Ahau; and if Katun 2 Ahau is made to end any 
earlier than 1516.287, Event C (1536) can not fall in Katun 13 Ahau. Thus, with- 
out the aid of Nakuk Pech’s important statement, the other sources give a corre- 
lation correct to within 4 years. 

Coming down to the tuns, we reach our first discrepancies. These divide 
themselves into three groups, as follows: 


GRoupP I. 


1517 fell in the last tun of Katun 2 Ahau (I). 

1536 fell in the last tun of Katun 13 Ahau (I). 

1536 fell in the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau (X), possibly only a few days later than I. 
1542 fell in the sixth tun of Katun 11 Ahau (I). 

1542 fell in the seventh tun of Katun 11 Ahau (X), one tun later than I. 

1562 fell in the sixth tun of Katun 9 Ahau (X), agrees with I. 


GROUP 2. 


1536 fell in the fourteenth tun of Katun 13 Ahau (III). 
1536 fell in the fourteenth tun of Katun 13 Ahau (IV). 
1536 fell in the fourteenth tun of Katun 13 Ahau (IX). 
1542 fell in the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau (II). 

1542 fell in the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau (XII). 


GROUP 3. 
1539 fell in the last tun of Katun 13 Ahau (V). 


But we have just seen that without the evidence of I in regard to Event B, if 
we make the end of Katun 2 Ahau any later than 1520.186, and consequently the 
end of Katun 13 Ahau any later than 1539.899, Event F can not fall in Katun 7 
Ahau at all, the katun given for it in III, IV, XI, and X. Therefore, in Group 2 the 
entries in III, IV, and LX, giving 1536 as 6 tuns before the end of Katun 13 Ahau, 
flatly contradict the entries in these same sources which give Event F as in Katun 7 
Ahau. ‘They are mutually exclusive, and one passage or the other must be rejected. 

When we come to examine the year-bearers, we will find that although III, 
IV, and IX agree that the year-bearer of Event C was 4 Kan, they disagree with 
every other correlation of year-bearers and Christian years known. The isolation 
of these three entries as regards these two different points, the tun in which Event 
C took place, as well as the corresponding year-bearer, and the fact that all three 
contradict other of their own statements, strongly indicates that they are incorrect, 
and should not be trusted for purposes of exact correlation. 

The third group stands by itself; moreover, as will be shown later, it makes 
Katun 13 Ahau end on 1539.841 (November 3) or only 21.2 days before the last day 
which will permit Event F to have taken place in Katun 7 Ahau. While it is of 
course true that Bishop Landa may have died in the first 22 days of Katun 7 Ahau, 
it appears unlikely that he did so, and when all the satisfactory agreements in Group 
I are taken into consideration (with which this single unsupported statement as 
to the tun in Group 3 disagrees), it appears probable that the tun arrangement in 
Group 3 as well as that in Group 2 may be rejected. 

Following the tun arrangement in Group 1, and utilizing the data given by I 
as to Events B and D and by X in regard to Event E, we reach a correlation wherein 
the margin of error is reduced to 49 days, 1. ¢., the ending of Katun 13 Ahau falling 
between December 15, 1536, and February 1, 1537 inclusive. To attempt a closer 
correlation than this appears unsafe in view of the character of the evidence with 
which we are dealing, but this far we may go in safety without violence to any of our 
sources save only those which contain contradictory statements within themselves. 


A nipeee 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 495 


__ If the foregoing correlation of the u kahlay katunob and Christian chronology 
is correct, we will have the following table of equivalents for the seven katuns here 
under examination: 


End of Katun 2 Ahau from 1517.243 to 1517.373. 
End of Katun 13 Ahau from 1536.956 to 1537.086. 
End of Katun 11 Ahau from 1556.669 to 1556.799. 
End of Katun 9g Ahau from 1576.382 to 1576.512. 
End of Katun 7 Ahau from 1596.095 to 1596.225. 
End of Katun 5 Ahau from 1615.808 to 1615.938. 
End of Katun 3 Ahau from 1635.521 to 1635.651. 


Before proceeding to select a single date between these two limits upon which 
to base a table of equivalents for the katun-endings in Christian chronology, it is 
first necessary to examine the question of the year-bearers. 

Distrust has already been expressed of the passages in ITI, IV, and IX, which 
give the year-bearer of the Maya year in which Event C fell as 4 Kan, and it will 
appear from the following presentation of the year-bearers that this can not possibly 
have been the case unless we again reject the preponderance of the evidence. 

The writer finds the following 17 passages in the several sources, in which Maya 
year-bearers are associated with specific years of Christian chronology: 


(1) The statement of Pio Pérez that the Maya year 7 Cauac began in 1392, based, he 
says, upon “‘all sources of information, confirmed by the testimony of Cosme 
de Burgos, one of the conquerors and a writer (but whose observations have 
been lost).’”! 

(2) An entry quoted by Brinton? from an unnamed Maya manuscript in his possession 
stating that the Maya year in which the Spaniards first arrived at Chichen 
Itza was 11 Muluc, the Christian year being either late in 1526 or early in 
1527; in either case in the Maya year 11 Muluc, which began in July 1526, and 
ended in July 1527. 

(3) An entry in III stating that the Maya year 4 Kan began in 1536. 

(4) An entry in IV stating that the Maya year 4 Kan began in 1536. 

(5) An entry in IX stating that the Maya year in which Napot Xiu died was 4 Kan, 
which event, we have seen, took place in the latter part of 1536. 

(6) A passage on page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab (V), giving a series of 13 years, 
beginning with the Maya year 4 Cauac, which began in 1532, and ending with 
the Maya year 3 Cauac, which began in 1544. 

(7) An entry in XII stating that the Maya year 9 Cauac began in 1537. 

(8) An entry in I stating that the Maya year 13 Kan began in 1541. 

(9) An entry on page 115 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, stating that 11 Chuen 
18 Zac fell on February 15, 1544, making the current Maya year 2 Ix begin in 


1543. 
(10) An entry on page 8 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Tizimin, stating that 11 Chuen 
18 Zac fell on February 15, 1544, making the current Maya year 2 Ix begin in 


1543. 

(11) An entry on page 1o1 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, stating that the Maya 
year 13 Kan began in 1593. 

(12) An entry on page 1 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Tizimin, stating that the 
Maya year 13 Kan began in 1593. 

(13) A passage on pages 168 to 170 of the Berendt copy of the Pio Pérez copy of certain 
extracts from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, giving a series of 53 years 
beginning with the Maya year 13 Cauac, which began in 1736, and ending with 
the same Maya year, which began again in 1788. 





1Stephens, 1843, vol. 1, p. 442. Pio Pérez derived this information in part from a passage in the Book of 
Chilan Balam of Mani, extracts from which appear in Berendt’s copy of the Pio Pérez copy of that manuscript. 
On page 176 of the Berendt copy, now in the library of the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (catalogue 
number: Br. 498.21 MB 456.5), under entries from page 67 of the Pio Pérez copy, the year 1392 is assigned the 
year-bearer 7 Cauac as follows: “1392 Uaxac Ahau lae 7 Cauac,” although the 8 Ahau can be neither a tun-ending 
nor a katun-ending in that year. 

2Brinton, 1882, p. 251. 


496 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


(14) A passage on pages 23 and 24 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Tizimin, giving a 
series of 48 years beginning with the Maya year 3 Cauac, which began in 1752, 
and ending with the Maya year 11 Ix, which began in 1799. ; 

(15) A passage on page 179 of the Berendt copy of the Pio Pérez copy of certain extracts 
from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, giving a series of 25 years, beginning 
with the Maya year 3 Cauac, which began in 1752, and ending with the Maya 
year 1 Cauac, which began in 1776. 

(16) A passage on page 174 of the Berendt copy of the Pio Pérez copy of certain extracts 
from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, giving a series of 17 years beginning 
with the Maya year 9 Muluc, which began in 1758, and ending with the Maya 
year 12 Muluc, which began in 1774. Tra de 

(17) A passage on page 24 of the Book of Chilan Balam of Tizimin, giving a series of 
52 years beginning with the Maya year 1 Kan, which began in 1758, and ending 
with the Maya year 13 Cauac, which began in 1809. 


Before proceeding to compare these several points of contact, we may first 
eliminate the last. This is clearly nothing more than a series of the 52 year-bearers 
divided into four divisions of 13 each, the first division, beginning with 1 Kan, 
being referred to the east, the second, beginning with 1 Muluc, being referred to the 
_north, the third, beginning with 1 Ix, being referred to the west, and the last, 
beginning with 1 Cauac, being referred to the south. 

It assigns the year-bearer 1 Kan to 1758, thereby disagreeing not only with 
the year-bearer for that year given in No. 14 (9 Muluc), a series which just precedes 
it in the Tizimin manuscript, but also with all the other sources given above, while No. 
14, on the other hand, agrees with all the other sources except Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7. 

No. 17 is obviously not an attempt to correlate the Maya year-bearers with 
the corresponding Christian years in which they fell, as is No. 14, but is only an 
arrangement of the 52 year-bearers beginning with 1 Kan in 1758, possibly because 
that may have been the year the series was written. It has, therefore, no value 
in the present connection, and may be eliminated from further consideration. 

We have, then, 16 different passages upon which to base our correlation cover- 
ing a range of more than 4 centuries, 1392 (No. 1) to 1799 (No. 14). In order to 
bring all the above year-bearers within the range of a single century and to expedite 
comparison, 1548, the third recurrence of 7 Cauac after 1392 (1. €., 1392 + (3 X 52) = 
1548) will be used in No. 1; 1528, the fourth recurrence of 13 Cauac before 1736 
(7. e., 1736 — (4 X §2) = 1528), in No. 13; 1544, the fourth recurrence of 3 Cauac 
before 1752 (1. ¢., 1752 — (4 X 52) = 1544) in No. 14. 1544 will also be substituted 
for 1752 in No. 15; and 1550, the fourth recurrence of 9 Muluc before 1758 (1. ¢., 
1758—(4 X 52) =1550) will be used in No. 16. 

Tabulating the Christian years from 1525 to 1593, inclusive, with their cor- 
responding year-bearers, we will have the table of equivalents given on page 497. 

It will be noted that this one system of correlation harmonizes 12 of our 16 
sources, Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 7 being the only ones which do not conform to it; and even 
of these, No. 7 states that 1537 was in a year 9 Cauac, 1. ¢., the coefficient being 
correct but the day-sign being Cauac, that of the preceding year, instead of Kan. 

The nearest occurrence of 9 Cauac to 9 Kan (1537) according to the above 
system is in 1524, but the context of this passage in No. 7 (XII) shows that it was 
the date of an event which took place some time after the death of Napot Xiu; 
indeed, that it was a conference held at Mani because of his death, and after the 
Spaniards had arrived at Champoton in 1537. If this conference was held before 
July 1537, it was in the same Maya year as Napot Xiu’s death, 7. ¢., 8 Cauac, and 
only the coefhcient is wrong, being a g for an 8; but if held after July 1537, the 
coefhcient g is correct and the day-sign is wrong, being Cauac for Kan. In either 
event the correction is slight, and this probably explains the existing disagreement. 





CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 497. 


Table showing the correlation of the Maya and the Christian years. 


| 
Christian Maya Christian Maya Christian Maya 











year. year. Source. year. year. Source. year. year, Source 

Peo cee. 10 Kan... $eiGy ace 3 7 Cauac} No. 1. Servite. : Pie eine pay 
PeAGine <1,4 11 Muluc} No. 2. PUG Y. 8 Kan... Ee EE 5 Cauac. 
Ny Janae iss. HC 4 ac ioe 9 Muluc| No. 16. jay AY sal oe 6) Kans. 
TeOR nt. 13 Cauac} No. 13. Feel inca TO. 1X. vas, ye ae 7 Muluc. 
iB Le eo, ee te Nanie- ify Arte 11 Cauac. yds vos woe hl ged re 
“Ot eee 2 Muluc. 5563 "ta ca: Kany vce kare g Cauac. 
CPE eens mh ee 15845 es 13 Muluc {C7 7-4 eS 10 Kan 
OE pee 4 Cauac} No. 6. Ni ee eRe 1576. a oe 11 Muluc. 
TNs ED 5 Kan... it pee 2 Cauac. £S7G=. ok Cpa ae 
eRthi te... 6 Muluc meres 2 Kaoc PEGO* uur 13 Cauac 
ee chaict 3 LS See, FES Te eke 4 Muluc. FEBL OS ims 1 Kan... 
ERtOr sc, » 8 Cauac PEG Ue ack Ske ee Cc? See 2 Muluc 
Hesea.st .; 9 Kan... REQ: te. 6 Cauac. ieGe.t5. tt AA eat 
a 10 Muluc. EEGL oastist 7 Kan... A) See 4 Cauac. 
i) ae Fils anes, PEGs as ns 8 Muluc. FEBS. 5 t6. 5 Kan... 
BORO vin s ss 12 Cauac. YEOS auto e ng Cae T500 os ha 6 Muluc. 
‘(ot eee 13 Kan. .| No. 8. 166400 ue. 10 Cauac. E87 2. Lope aon 
Bee aes ii. 1 Muluc. Veneta: 11 Kan... chet ae 8 Cauac. 
Tee MAR pe) N08, 9, 0G.1) PSG0%. 5 a. 12 Muluc. a ae Go Kane. 
BRaAY Sess 3 Cauac| Nos.14,15.|| 1567...... Pets. ara we 10 Muluc. 
$8455 i. 4 Kan... ES6SLOS A 1 Cauac. 191% in. inhi 
1) 5 Muluc. BGG bites. 2 Kan... EEGS, tu. cs 12 Cauac. 
BRT 5 cre ae Sere einen ee 3 Muluc. Cot eee 13 Kan. .| Nos.11,12. 





This leaves Nos. 3, 4, and 5 (the first two probably copies of the same original), 
all of which agree with each other that 4 Kan fell in 1536, but disagree with every- 
thing else. It will be remembered that it was these same three entries which fixed 
the year 1536 as occurring in the fourteenth tun of Katun 13 Ahau, thereby dis- 
agreeing with all the other sources and even contradicting other entries of their own 
by that statement. 

It is obvious, therefore, that these three passages are radically wrong; not only 
do they give a tun correlation at variance with all the other sources and even with 
themselves elsewhere, but also the year-bearer they associate with 1536 disagrees 
with those in the other two systems for this year, and even with the one in the purely 
schematic 52-year series in No. 17. 

Because of their isolation and consistent non-conformity with everything else, 
including even other passages in the chronicles where they occur, the writer be- 
lieves this passage in III, IV, and 1X must have the two following points stricken 
from it: 


(1) That 1536 fell in the fourteenth tun of Katun 13 Ahau. 
(2) That 4 Kan was the year-bearer for the year beginning in July 1536. 


And be accepted only as regards the two more general points: 


(1) That Napot Xiu died in a Katun 13 Ahau. 
(2) That this event took place in 1536. 





1No. 13, as carried backward 208 years, begins a series of 53 consecutive years here: 1528-1580 inclusive. 

2No. 6 begins a series of 13 consecutive years here: 1532 to 1544 inclusive. 

3No. 6 ends with this year, and Nos. 14 and 15 as carried backward 208 years, begin series of 48 and 25 con- 
secutive years respectively with this year: No. 14, 1544-1591 inclusive, and No. 15, 1544-1568 inclusive. 

4No. 16, as carried backward 208 years, begins a series of 17 consecutive years here: 1550-1566 inclusive. 

5This may be Landa’s specimen year 12 Kan. 

6No. 16, as carried backward 208 years, ends with this year. 

™No. 15, as carried backward 208 years, ends with this year. 

8No. 13, as carried backward 208 years, ends with this year. 

9No. 14, as carried backward 208 years, ends with this year. 


498 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The foregoing analysis of the year-bearers shows a remarkable agreement, 
twelve different sources, written between 1562 and 1782, giving year-bearers 
scattered over a period of more than four centuries, all of which conform to the 
same system of correlation. 

Most significant of all, perhaps, is the fact that Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16, written 
as late as the latter half of the eighteenth century, agree with the system of year- 
bearers in use more than two centuries earlier, at the time of the Spanish Conquest. 

All these agreements can not be the result of chance alone, and we may there- 
fore accept Nakuk Pech’s statement that Merida was founded in the Maya year 
13 Kan (i. ¢., July 1541, to July 1542) without any further reservation, and utilize 
this point of contact for our correlation of the Maya year-bearers with Christian 
chronology. 

Finally, the whole question of the proper alinement of the u kahlay katunob 
with Christian chronology may be summed up as follows: 


(1) Practically all of the sources, Spanish as well as native, agree with Nakuk Pech in 
placing the end of Katun 2 Ahau as falling some time in 1517. 

(2) The great bulk of the evidence tends to show further that this katun ended very 
early in 1517, 7. ¢., between 1517.243 and 1517.373, and that the following katun, 
Katun 13 Ahau, ended between 1536.956 and 1537.086. 


With the evidence now available it appears unwise to attempt to make a closer 
correlation than the foregoing, which restricts the maximum margin of error to 
49 days. However, in order to have a single Christian date for each katun-ending 
in the accompanying table of equivalents, December 24, 1536, 1. ¢., 1536.982 has 
been arbitrarily selected as the day upon which Katun 13 Ahau ended for the fol- 
lowing reason: Goodman gives this same day as that upon which Katun 13 Ahau 
ended according to the Itza, Cocom, and Chel chronicles, although he does not 
describe the data upon which this correlation is based.!. This date lies between the 
two limits reached in the foregoing pages, for which reason it has been followed 
here, and in any case it can not be more than 39 days earlier or 9 days later than 
the true date. 

On the basis of this point of contact, the corresponding equivalents in Christian 
chronology for the several katuns of the u kahlay katunob found in the Books of 
Chilan Balam as set forth by Brinton,’ are given in the table on page 499. 

Before going further with our correlation, it is necessary to point out several 
special features of this table. In the first place, the Christian years given cor- 
respond to the ends of the katuns with which they are correlated and not their 
beginnings. Again, Brinton’s arrangement of the earlier katuns prior to Katun 6 
Ahau (452.767 A. D.) has been followed exactly. In this connection it should be 
borne in mind that the first chronicle from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel 
presents an unbroken succession of the katuns from Katun 3 Ahau (1635.547 A. D.) 
back to the discovery of Chichen Itza in Katun 6 Ahau (452.767 A. D.), a period of 
nearly 1,200 years, and more than 1,100 years before the Spanish Conquest. 

The first Chumayel chronicle begins with the discovery of Chichen Itza, but the 
Mani and Tizimin chronicles go back 14 katuns earlier to a legendary departure 
from the probably mythological land of Tulapan and the house, Nonoual. To be 
sure, there are repetitions and omissions in both these records among these earliest 
14 katuns, but the arrangement suggested by Brinton appears to the writer to be 
correct, and, as we shall presently see, its use gives rise to a remarkable condition, 
which in itself strongly tends to authenticate its own accuracy. 





1What Goodman really says is that “the 11 Ahau katun [i. ¢., Katun 11 Ahau] of the Itzas, Cocoms, and 
Chels began December 25, 1536” (1905, p. 645), that is, the following day. 
*Brinton, 1882, pp. 87, 88. 


ale AR 


_——_— A 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 499 

Finally, in the column of events there are certain minor differences with the 
record as given by Brinton. A few uncertain events of lesser importance have been 
omitted, a few others at the end of the sequence have been included, and the dates 
of a few important events, such as the foundation of Uxmal, have been corrected 
to conform with discoveries made subsequent to Brinton’s time. 


Table showing correlation of the u kahlay katunob and Christian chronology. 








Christian Christian 
U kahlay katunob.| chronol- Event U kahlay katunob.] chronol- Event. 
ogy. ogy. 
A. D. A. D. 
Katun 8 Ahau..| 176.785) Leave Tulapan. Katun 2 Ahau..|1004.731| The Xiu found Uxmal. 
Katun 6 Ahau..| 196.498 League of Mayapan 
Katun 4 Ahau..| 216.211 begins. 
Katun 2 Ahau..| 235.924 Katun 13 Ahau..|1024.444 
Katun 13 Ahau..| 255.637} Arrive Chacnouitan. Katun 11 Ahau..|1044.157 
Katun 11 Ahau..| 275.350 Katun 9 Ahau..|1063.870 
Katun 9g Ahau..| 295.063 Katun 7 Ahau..|1083.583 
Katun 7 Ahau..| 314.776 Katun 5 Ahau..|1103.296 
Katun 5 Ahau..| 334.489 Katun 3 Ahau..|1123.009 
Katun 3 Ahau..| 354.202 Katun 1 Ahau..|1142.722 
Katun 1 Ahau..| 373.915 Katun 12 Ahau..}1162.435 
Katun 12 Ahau..| 393.628 Katun 10 Ahau..|1182.148 
Katun 10 Ahau..| 413.341 Katun 8 Ahau..|1201.861| Plot of Hunnac Ceel. 
Katun 8 Ahau..| 433.054 League of Mayapan 
Katun 6 Ahau..| 452.767} Chichen Itza discovered. ends. 
Katun 4 Ahau..| 472.480) Bakhalal occupied. Katun 6 Ahau..|1221.574 
Katun 2 Ahau..| 492.193 Katun 4 Ahau..|1241.287 
Katun 13 Ahau..| 511.906} Pop counted in order. Katun 2 Ahau..]1261.000 
Katun 11 Ahau..} 531.619} Chichen Itza occupied. Katun 13 Ahau..|1280.713 
Katun 9g Ahau..| 551.332 Katun 11 Ahau..|1300. 426 
Katun 7 Ahau..| 571.045 Katun 9 Ahau..|1320.139 
Katun 5 Ahau..| 590.758 Katun 7 Ahau..|/1339.852 
Katun 3 Ahau..| 610.471 Katun 5 Ahau..|1359.565 
Katun 1 Ahau..| 630.184 Katun 3 Ahau..|1379.278 
Katun 12 Ahau..}| 649.897 Katun 1 Ahau..}1398.991 
Katun 10 Ahau..| 669.610} Chichen Itza abandoned.|| Katun 12 Ahau..|1418.704 
Katun 8 Ahau..| 689.323 Katun 10 Ahau. .|1438.417 
Katun 6 Ahau..} 709.036] Chakanputun occupied. || Katun 8 Ahau../1458.130] Mayapan destroyed by 
Katun 4 Ahau..| 728.749 the Xiu. 
Katun 2 Ahau..| 748.462 Katun 6 Ahau..|1477.843 
Katun 13 Ahau..| 768.175 Katun 4 Ahau..|1497.556| The pestilence. 
Katun 11 Ahau..| 787.888 Katun 2 Ahau..{1517.269| Spaniards first seen. The 
Katun 9g Ahau..| 807.601 small-pox. 
Katun 7 Ahau..| 827.314 Katun 13 Ahau..|1536.982| The water-bringer Ah 
Katun 5 Ahau..| 847.027 Napot Xiu dies. 
Katun 3 Ahau..| 866.740 Katun 11 Ahau..|1556.695| Spanish Conquest. Me- 
Katun 1 Ahau..| 886.453 rida founded. 
Katun 12 Ahau..| 906.166 Katun 9 Ahau..|1576.408) Bishop Toral arrives. 
Katun 10 Ahau..| 925.879 Katun 7 Ahau..|1596.121} Bishop Landa dies. 
Katun 8 Ahau..} 945.592| Chakanputunabandoned.|| Katun 5 Ahau..|1615.834 
Katun 6 Ahau..| 965.305] The Itza return to Chich-|| Katun 3 Ahau..|1635.547| Father Fuensalida visits 
en Itza. Lake Peten Itza. 
Katun 4 Ahau..| 985.018 














THE CORRELATION OF THE LONG COUNT AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 


Having now effected the correlation of the uw kahlay katunob and Christian 
chronology as far as possible, we have performed the first step indicated on page 467, 
and there remains to ascertain what was the Initial Series corresponding to any one 
of these katuns; for when this connection is established, we shall have performed 
the second step mentioned on page 467, and the correlation of the Old Empire 


500 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


chronology with that of our own Christian Era will be complete, and if this method 
and procedure are correct, the age of the Old Empire cities will have been ascertained 
more accurately than the age of any cities of antiquity in the Old World. 

In 1900 Mr. E. H. Thompson, working under the auspices of the Peabody 
Museum of Harvard University, uncovered at the ruins of Chichen Itza in northern 
Yucatan (see plate 1), in that part of the city known as Old Chichen Itza, a very 
remarkable hieroglyphic text inscribed on the front and under side of a stone lintel. 
This was found to present no less than the Initial Series 10.2.9.1.9 9 Muluc 7 Zac, 
and was the first count of its kind discovered in Yucatan. Indeed, since then only 
two others have been found, so that at the present time there are only three Initial 
Series known throughout the length and breadth of the peninsula.! 

The importance of this discovery can not be overestimated. It was the first 
definite proof that Initial Series dating had carried over into the New Empire at 
all, and the date which it records is such as to indicate that it was practically 
contemporaneous with the closing dates of the Old Empire cities in the south. 
Indeed, subsequently (1918), the writer discovered a Period Ending date on the 
. front of this lintel, 331 days later than its Initial Series date, which shows that it 
was exactly contemporaneous with the latest date in the south, namely, the lahun- 
tun-ending 10.2.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Chen on Stela 2 at Quen Santo; and it may be 
assumed that this lintel originally came from a temple that had been dedicated on 
that lahuntun-ending.’” 

Granting the truth of this assumption, now generally admitted, the problem 
of correlating the Old and New Empire chronologies, that is, the Initial Series and 
the u kahlay katunob, then resolved itself into finding out, first, on how many different 
lahuntun-endings 2 Ahau Chichen Itza had been occupied, and second, which one 
of these had 10.2.10.0.0 for its corresponding Initial Series number. 

But in the u kahlay katunob, no lahuntun-endings are recorded, only the katun- 
endings, and, therefore, before we can attempt to fit this particular lahuntun into 
its proper place in the u kahlay katunob, it is first necessary to ascertain in just what 
katun 10.2.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Chen fell. This was katun 10.3.0.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin, 
or, as it would have been recorded in the u kahlay katunob, simply Katun 1 Ahau. 
Our first step, therefore, is to find all the Katuns 1 Ahau in the u kahlay katunob on 
page 499 during which Chichen Itza is declared to have been occupied. 

It will be found that there are five Katuns 1 Ahau in this table; but since 
Chichen Itza was not even discovered until nearly a century after the first one had 
passed (Katun 1 Ahau, ending in 373.915 A. D.), and since the third one (Katun 1 
Ahau, ending in 886.453) occurred at a time when Chichen Itza is clearly stated to 
have been abandoned, only the second, fourth, and fifth occurrences concern us 


here, namely: 
Katun 1 Ahau, 630.184 A. D. 
Katun 1 Ahau, 1142.722 A. D. 
Katun 1 Ahau, 1398.991 A. D. 


If our method and procedure have been correct up to this point, one of these 
three Katuns 1 Ahau is 10.3.0.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin, in which the lahuntun-ending 
10.2.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Chen fell. Let us next substitute this Initial Series for each 
of the above three Katuns 1 Ahau, and note the effects of the resulting correlations. 








'This one at Chichen Itza, that on Stela 1 at Tuluum, and the one on the back wall of the Temple of the 
Initial Series at Holactun (Xcalumkin). This Chichen Itza lintel, Stela 9 at Uaxactun, and the Tuxtla Statuette, 
are, in the writer’s opinion, the three most important texts in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum. 

*Although this lintel itself dated from the earliest period of the city’s occupation, it was found in a position 
clearly indicating secondary usage in a temple of the Toltec or Nahua Period, supported by a pair of large Atlan- 
tean figures. These Atlantean figures were a purely Nahuan development, and could hardly have been made 
until about 6 centuries after the lintel itself was carved. 


ln I Bei ee 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. Sol 


If 10.3.0.0.0 were the Initial Series corresponding to the last of these three, then 
by counting back through the sequence 23 katuns from 1398.991, we will reach 
Katun 8 Ahau, 945.592 A.D., as the beginning of Cycle 9, 7. ¢., 9.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 
13 Ceh. This is true because 9.0.0.0.0 is just 23 katuns earlier than 10.3.0.0.0. 
That is to say, under this correlation, all the cities of the Old Empire (see figure 
69) flourished approximately from 950 to 1350 a. D.; further, that Chichen Itza 
was discovered in 7.15.0.0.0 6 Ahau 18 Chen, 25 katuns earlier; and finally, that 
the mythological beginning of the u kahlay katunob goes back to 7.1.0.0.0 8 Ahau 
18 Xul, 14 katuns still earlier. 

This correlation is impossible on the face of it. It would make the Old Empire 
cities, Copan, Tikal, Palenque, Yaxchilan, Piedras Negras, etc., the contemporaries 
of the New Empire cities, Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Mayapan, Izamal, Kabah, Labna, 
etc., an impossible condition from the archeological evidence. It would make the 
discovery of Chichen Itza, a New Empire city, date from Cycle 7, or more than 
two centuries before the earliest contemporaneous date known anywhere in the 
Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarun, 7. ¢., the Tuxtla Statuette, and finally, it would 
carry the record of historical events in Yucatan back to a period (Cycle 7) when 
it is extremely doubtful whether the Maya chronological system had yet even been 
devised. Soimpossible are these conditions, from the historic as well as the archzo- 
logic point of view, that this correlation may be rejected outright. 

If 10.3.0.0.0 was the Initial Series corresponding to the second of these three 
Katuns 1 Ahau (7. ¢., Katun 1 Ahau, 1142.722 a. D.), then the beginning of Cycle 9 
would fall in Katun 8 Ahau, 689.323 A. D., and the discovery of Chichen Itza in 
8.8.0.0.0 6 Ahau 18 Kayab and the beginning of the whole series in 7.14.0.0.0 
8 Ahau 18 Kankin. This would make the Old Empire cities flourish from 
approximately 700 to 1100 A. D.;it would carry the discovery of Chichen Itza 
back to within 35 years of the date of the Tuxtla Statuette and actually 130 years 
previous to the date of the earliest stela known, Stela 9 at Uaxactun, and would 
make the series of katuns begin in 7.14.0.0.0 8 Ahau 18 Kankin, probably before 
the Maya chronological system had been devised, as already noted. 

While somewhat better than the first correlation, this second is open to the same 
objections, and gives rise to too impossible conditions, from the historic as well as 
the archzologic point of view, and it also may be rejected in the present connection. 

This leaves us but one more Katun 1 Ahau during which Chichen Itza is said to 
have been occupied, namely, Katun 1 Ahau, 630.184 A. D., and substitution of the 
Initial Series 10.3.0.0.0 for this katun leads to a surprising result at the beginning of 
the series, as well as giving rise to minor archzologic agreements, all tending to 
indicate that this is the true correlation. 

If 10.3.0.0.0 were the Initial Series corresponding to Katun 1 Ahau, 630.184 
A.D., then the first katun in the series on page 499, Katun 8 Ahau, 176.785 a.D., will 
be none other than g.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh, the beginning of Cycleg. Here, indeed, 
is a remarkable coincidence if nothing more, namely, that by the use of this cor- 
relation the first katun in the series is found to be 9.0.0.0.0, or the beginning of the 
cycle during which the Maya attained their first great cultural brilliance, and a 
period which ever afterward, and especially in more decadent later times, must have 
appeared to them to have been the Golden Age of their race and civilization. 

The entry against this date—the departure from the land of Tulapan and the 
house Nonoual from Zuiva at the west—is almost certainly of a mythological char- 
acter, as Brinton has pointed out.!_ These proper names belong to the Quetzalcoatl 
myth in Aztec mythology, Tulapan (literally, “Standard of Tula’’) being the name 


1Brinton, 1882, pp. 110-113. 


502 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


of the famous Toltec city ruled by the God Quetzalcoatl, Nonoual or Nonohual 
being a mountain near the sacred city where resided the sister of Quetzalcoatl, and 
Zuiva or Zuiua being the topmost heaven in Aztec cosmogony, where the father of 
Quetzalcoatl lived and where that god himself was born. 

These mythological elements, in the opening entry of the u kahlay katunob, all 
of a Nahua nature, the writer believes, were not grafted onto the Maya historical 
records until a very much later time than that to which they purport to refer, 
indeed, not until after 1200 A. D., when the Nahua influence first entered Yucatan, 
and the fact that the entry against the first katun in the series is clearly of a mytho- 
logical character, indicates why the series itself may have been started with 9.0.0.0.0 
8 Ahau 13 Chen as developed by this particular correlation. What more natural 
than that the Maya of the New Empire should have started their chronicles from 
the beginning of that cycle which witnessed their first rise to power, and from a date 
which later must have become associated by them with the very birth of their 
civilization, religion, art, and architecture. This event was later invested with a 
mythological character, as we have seen and assigned a date which fifteen cen- 
_turies later, 7.¢., in Cycle 12, must itself have attained a traditional importance 
second to none, and must have seemed the most appropriate date of all with which 
to begin their chronicles. 

Another strong point in support of the accuracy of this particular correlation 
is the orderly and logical sequence of events, as established by the archeological 
evidence to which it gives rise. For example, it makes the discovery of Chichen 
Itza take place in 9.14.0.0.0 at the close of the Middle Period, and gives sufficient 
time for knowledge of that important event to have spread among the southern cities 
before their abandonment, which began about a century later. (See Chapter V.) 

Again, it makes the Chichen Itza Initial Series contemporaneous with the 
closing dates in the south, thereby agreeing with the archzological evidence at 
Chichen Itza itself, where the Initial Series lintel was found in what is generally 
recognized as having been the oldest part of the city; and it also agrees with the 
documentary evidence, the u kahlay katunob in the Books of Chilan Balam, which 
indicate that Yucatan was first colonized from the southeast, Bakhalal and Chichen 
Itza being the first regions occupied, the former contiguous to the northeastern 
corner of Peten, where the latest Old Empire dates are found. 

Weighing all the evidence, positive as well as negative, historical as well as 
archeological, the writer believes the Katun 1 Ahau which ended in 630.184 A. D. 
in the u kahlay katunob on page 499, was the one in which the Chichen Itza lintel 
was dedicated, and that its corresponding Initial Series was therefore 10.3.0.0.0 
1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin. The principal points leading to this conclusion follow: 

(1) The improbable and unsatisfactory conditions from the historical and archeological 
points of view, to which the other two correlations under this method give rise, as, for 
example, the discovery of Chichen Itza in 7.15.0.0.0 or 8.8.0.0.0, or the placing of the Old 
Empire cities as late as 950 to 1350 A. D. or 700 to IIOO A. D. 

(2) The satisfactory conditions from the historical and archeological points of view to 
which the correlation suggested gives rise, as, for example, the rise of the Old Empire 
about 200 A. D.; the discovery of Chichen Itza about 450 a. pD.; and the collapse of the Old 
Empire and the rise of the New Empire about the same time, 7. ¢. shortly after 610 A. D. 

(3) The significant fact that this correlation of the u kahlay katunob and the Long Count 
gives to the first katun in the record the Initial Series number 9.0.0.0.0, not only a round 
number in the Maya chronological system, but also the beginning of the particular cycle 
during which the Maya first emerged from barbarism to a semicivilized state, and therefore 
a highly appropriate point at which in later times to have begun their historical records. 

(4) The flat contradictions with the archeological evidence developed by the only other 


correlation at all likely to be correct, namely, that suggested by Goodman and supported 
by the tun series on page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, to be examined later. 


-. — vs. ee 


SS SS 


Initial Series 
number. 


WOOOOODOODOODOOOONOOOOWO 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 


503 


Correlation of the Initial Series, u kahlay katunob and Christian chronology. 


O ON ANAYWHHO 


9009900090900990000090000009090000000009009000000000000999099909900990009900000000 


900900900900990909000900900090909009009000900000000009900999099099909909090900090000000 
0900090900990999990999990909000990009000900099000090000909900909999999909900900090000000 


U kahlay katunob. 


8 Ahau 


4 Ahau 
2 Ahau 
13 Ahau 
11 Ahau 
g Ahau 
7 Ahau 
5 Ahau 
3 Ahau 
1 Ahau 
12 Ahau 
10 Ahau 
8 Ahau 
6 Ahau 
4 Ahau 
2 Ahau 
13 Ahau 
11 Ahau 
g Ahau 
7 Ahau 
5 Ahau 
3 Ahau 
1 Ahau 
12 Ahau 
10 Ahau 
8 Ahau 
6 Ahau 
4 Ahau 
2 Ahau 
13 Ahau 
11 Ahau 
9g Ahau 
7 Ahau 
5 Ahau 
3 Ahau 
1 Ahau 
12 Ahau 
10 Ahau 
8 Ahau 
6 Ahau 
4 Ahau 
2 Ahau 
13 Ahau 
11 Ahau 
g Ahau 
7 Ahau 
5 Ahau 
3 Ahau 
1 Ahau 
12 Ahau 
10 Ahau 
8 Ahau 
6 Ahau 
4 Ahau 
2 Ahau 
13 Ahau 
11 Ahau 
9 Ahau 
7 Ahau 
5 Ahau 
3 Ahau 
1 Ahau 
12 Ahau 
10 Ahau 
8 Ahau 
6 Ahau 
4 Ahau 
2 Ahau 
13 Ahau 
11 Ahau 
g Ahau 
7 Ahau 
5 Ahau 
3 Ahau 


13 Ceh 


6 Ahau 13 Yaxkin... 


wiehs 5) < 


BT eee 
18 Chen.... 


13 Ceh.... # 
13 Yaxkin.. 


Christian 


chronology. 


Darl 7 Or 
196. 
216. 

924 

.637 

7 Ke 

295. 

314. 

334. 

354. 

373. 

393 - 

413. 

433. 

452. 

472. 

492. 

0 

531. 

Sorc 

cor. 


590. 
610. 


630. 
649. 
669 .6 
689. 
709. 
728%, 


235 
255 


785 
498 
211 





Event. 





Leave Tulapan. 


Arrive Chacnouitan. 


Chichen Itza discovered. 
Bakhalal occupied. 


Pop counted in order. 
Chichen Itza occupied. 


Chichen Itza abandoned. 


Chakanputun occupied. 


Chakanputun abandoned. 
The Itza return to Chichen Itza. 


The Xiu found Uxmal. League of Mayapan begins. 


Plot of Hunnac Ceel. League of Mayapan ends. 


Mayapan destroyed by the Xiu. 


The pestilence. 

Spaniards first seen. The small-pox. 
The water-bringer Ah Napot Xiu dies. 
Spanish Conquest. Merida founded. 
Bishop Toral arrives. 


Bishop Landa dies. 


Father Fuensalida visits Lake Peten Itza. 





504 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Finally, having established this one point of contact between the u kahlay 
katunob and the Initial Series, it is simply a matter of counting the Initial Series 
recording katun-endings either backward or forward from this point in the u kahlay 
katunob on page 499 in order to reach the Initial Series corresponding to any par- 
ticular katun thereof, 7. ¢., the second step on page 467. And having established this 
point of contact with the wu kahlay katunob, any Initial Series may be reduced to its 
corresponding equivalent in Christian chronology under the correlation already 
established between the u kahlay katunob and the Christian years under step one 
on page 467, which completes the process of correlation there set forth. 

For the reader’s convenience these corresponding Initial Series have been 
inserted in the table on page 503, which is otherwise the same as that on page 499. 

No equivalent values in the Christian Era have been given for the different 
hotun-endings in Chapters II, III, and IV and Appendix VIII, since exact cor- 
relation (7. e. to the day) of the eae Count and Christian SHeanolGee has yet to be 
effected. However, approximate correlation (1. ¢., to within a year, and possibly 
even to within 49 days) now appears reasonably certain, and the following table of 
_ approximate equivalents is based upon the alinement of the two chronologies 
suggested in the foregoing pages. 


Table showing the equivalent dates in the Christian Era for the corresponding 


hotun-endings of the Old Empzre. 


Tue Earry Periop. 





A.D. A.D. 
8.14.15.0.012 Ahau 8 Uo... fis. cicsdiccae,) 93 | Om 2210.0.6. 3 Aliau ro COMBO ee 226 
8.15. °0:6,0 “5 Ahaviess Pope ...e4 un eee 78 | 9, 2.15.00 9g Ahau, 4 Kayah.c.30. oe 230 
8.15. §.0.011 Ahau 3 Cumhu..........0...03 83 (Qs53.0.0.02 Alea is Mitel ee ee 235 
8.15.10,0.0 4 Ahaw t8°Pan,...semaesene eee 88 | 9. 3. ¢.0.0; 8 Ahau.37 Rankin.-. ).- 2 ee 240 
8.15. 1. 0.0;T0Ahau rs Muang. ee 92 |Q: 9.10,0-0)7 Ahan a8 Mace tae oe 245 
8.16. 0.6.0 9 Ahan Ss Rankine 97 |} 9. '4.15.0.0 9 Ahad) '¢ Cen... oc eee 250 
8:16. 5.0;0 O Abau 9 Mace oye ee 102. | 9. 4. ‘9.0.0 19 Ahaw 18, Yaxseeee. oe 255 
8.16,10.0:0.02 Ahau &8 2a¢ ee, eee 107 |-9. 4.5.0.0! 6 Ahan 47°Chen. 7 eee 260 
8.16.15 .0;0° 8 Ahaw 14 Vax! 025-5 ae eee 112°|.9. 4.10;0.0 12 Ahaw.8 Mol]... 7... 2 ae 265 
8.17. 0.0.0° r Ahau 8 Chen... cc03. cca. cases ANF [O40 1830.06 Anau) ec 270 
8.17. 5.0:0 7Ahau 3 Moly. oo 66... sce. 122) (eOun be O00 1k Meaue | Seen nen 275 
$..17.10.0,0883 AOA TOA ee ee 127’ | 9. §..8.0,0 4 Ahauit3 Zot 2 280 
$719.18 .0,0 ‘6 Aba (7 Vzets. 2 eee oe 132 | 9. §.10:0:0 10 Ahal’ 6 Zig, eee eee 285 
8.18. ©x0);0 12 Ahau a8 Zod ene eae 137 129. /851510.0049 Ahan s woe 290 
8.18. s: 000 4 Ana 2¢ Zip ee te eee 142 [°9._ 6. 0,0.079 Ahauy3. Vaya eee eee 295 
$18; 10.0.0 11, Aha TSivopnanee ee eee 147 | 9.°6. 5.0.0) 2:Ahau 18 Kaya. 9. 299 
8.18.15 0.04 Whauis6 Canna eee 1s2 }9. 6.f0.0,0 SAhgu 13 Pax ee ee ee 304 
8.19. 0.0.0 10 Ahaw 53 Kavabs ose ee is7 | 9. 6. 19.0.0) 17 Aha? & Milan)... 0 eee 309 
8.19. §.0.0 %3 Ahawee Paige ee eee 161 |-Q. 7, 0.0.0" 7 Ahaus-3) \ ankin. |) 314 
8.19.10:0;0 9 Ahawe s Muanseeeates eee 166 | 9. °7;-§.0.0 14 Ahauas Cela 7. hee ee 319 
8.19.15 .0:0. 2 Aha 08 Macs: 22.4) eee 171°] 9. 7.10,0.0) 6 Ahaws? 7a¢2 2). eee 324 
9. 0. 0.0.0 8 Ahaw 13 Cehoioeck. 0005 eek tO 1G. Tels. 000 Bt ate ate ee 329 
9.0: 5.0.0: 5 Ahag@es Zac eee 181.-] 9. 8.6.00 *5 Altau 29 Chen.7. 4 ee 334 
9g. 0.10.0.0..7 Ahaw 03 Yax.. us sue 052 ce te ae 100. 1 O61 5.0.0 EE Ana eo 1 eke ee 339 
0. 0. 1§050-13 Alva 86 Mol. coe eee TOI i'9. 8.16.0.0 4 Ahat gal oc ee ee eee 344 
9. 1. 0.0.0.6 Ahau 14, Yaxkin......¢4c03< cn. 196 [9.08.15 .0,.0 10 Ahagy Sa cece eee 349 
Q. 1. 5,0:042 Ahan 26..u) oe es 201.7120. 0. 0.0.0 "9 Aha: Zot oo ee ee 354 
9: 1.10.0:07 § Aban 39 eect ee ee 200) |0)) Os 50.0 8 OA NaUsLS: WOn i ee ee 359 
9) L.15.0.05) Ahaw 18 Ape. ee eee 211 1q. @.10,0,0 72 Ahan a¢,Popan 2, 364 
9. 2. 0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Uo. i005... 0 eee 2167, 9. 16,0.0.06 Alaa 02 Commen.- ee 368 
9. 2.5.0.0 10 Ahaw BP oon eee eee 227 41,9.10. 0:00 oY Ahaua Sissyans,. ok 2 cee ee 373 

Tue Mippte Perron. 

A.D. A.D. 
9:10) 5.0.0 «7 Ahaue3) Raxaaceee iene ee B78 1|'0.12115.0.0, 02 halal 4) Zp aan eee 428 
9.10.10.0,0 13 Ahauw 18 Kankin,3...76..«asica1 98% 1 G-19s0070,.0 1h AbaAU eG 433 
0.10:15.0:0 (6) Ahan 14uNl ace eee 488 1 (9:13 ..6.0.0: Aha 29) on 6s eee 437 
9.11. 0.0.012 Ahau 8 Ceh. oo. 5.0.4 vacant ss 303) 169419 210,0-0 bau s 0 Oe ee ee 442 
0.11. 5.0.0 § Ahaiag Zacaay nee eee 398 19.19 .16.0,0.43 Ahawag Pat co. eee 447 
9.11:10.0:0 11 Aha 9 Chen... ee 4031 (9-84. 0.0-0° 6 Ahau 13 Muan, ea, 1.44) ee 452 
9.11.15.0.0°.4 Ahan. 1g¢Moly = os te ee AOS H49n 1425010112 Aha Suc ankine eee eee 457 
Q;12.,.0:0.0, JO Ahaur.y akin: 29st Al3@ | 50), 14. 10.020 5A haw a Vl ace eee 462 
9.127 §.0.0, 3, Ahau <3 Xuli. coe ae eee 418. [O54 .15.0-0.2) Alia t8/.50 ee 2 eee eee 467 
9. 12510,0.0 6 Alraulss 20s, een 423° 1°9.16.00.0.0 (4 Abau $4 Vato. cere ee ee 472 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 


Table showing the equivalent dates in the Christian Era for the corresponding 
hotun-endings of the Old Empire—continued. 


Tue Great PERIOD. 


A.D. 
magbase 0.0.60 Anas 5G Nene doa sos nok eee 477 
ORES eIOLOLO 63 Abas ese Ni Olic sae. ae Merete 482 
ay rest§so.0 +o Ahautr8 xual. coy ee tans 487 
GnioOrO O21 AhaulIgul 76s: ly ea oriyres ene 492 
eet Pe OL0 2 8 AAU NG PAE. ented acho ea 497 
OuIOMIG.OFO"7 WaAhau, 24 Zip sath. okt s ete 502 
DeLOw oO Ome aA halk Gel ODne en ie mere eie ote 506 
mate. 7O/0-0 17 Aliau. 10 CUMIN. cok sre tke ens SII 
Only #5208 Go Anauer; Kayabts..css ene 516 
mace O00 S hau tS: Pax ee. ou) aa tin.e eon 521 
eect SA.) 6 ANRU. 1S WAUBI cic cc cas ogaecryes & 526 
Gere Oro trAhiu a8) Macs. 0. es ee 531 
eee ee..0.09 4 Anan 15 Cen sa heen punts eee 536 
Pent .O.0 16 Aha 8 Zae. cc. ew otccenene«ss 54 
eee oo a Ahaw 9 V aes oo co cece ot os ve 546 


505 

A.D. 
Pio Onno Ahan 18: Mol.is..5c.c ccs ces sae 5S! 
Gutiraee On anal £3. YAXKIN., 24.2.0 4 <0 556 
pea mere. Ga lia AS Kal). o0 ee 561 
aC Ee tee MALATE. FEL LOC) oo os, cic stinnsls «ia sodcce 566 
MOS Rg AANA LS ADS, cis os ss oe ns sm 571 
fovea. % 0.0 15 Ahaw is Uol. eects... ed es) 875 
Rees Cn AACS POD ho iss ykn cc «kas 580 
io 6078 -0.0. 22-Anau © Ciumhu,......:5...s. 585 
POMLT. ©0060’ *stAhau 5 Kayab. io i. 283k. 590 
Foe 5.620 11, Ahaw 18 Miran) acs og: Seno pus S98 
ian tesa und Oa 1s RANKING o.25.. c+ eo » - 600 
TOM 15, O,OmOrAnawis Macimen.eka es. see. - 605 
force Boe Oboe Abou 3, Coby daca catnss acce 610 
Poets 0CO O.nal Fan Vad so eag a cases» OLS 
Ome 2slLOFO. Om 2eAhaums, Cheneeae ts 8 se soe « 620 


At the Nineteenth International Congress of Americanists, held in Washington 
in 1915, the writer proposed a division of Maya history into two general epochs, the 
Old Empire and the New Empire, both of which were further subdivided into 


several shorter periods.' 


On the basis of the above correlation, the duration of these several periods 
expressed in the Old Empire chronology (the Initial Series), the New Empire 
chronology (the u kahlay katunob), and in Christian chronology is given below. 


Table showing the principal divisions of Maya history. 


Tue Op Empire 


I. The Early Period. 


The earliest times to 9.10.0.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Kayab. 
The earliest times to Katun 1 Ahau. 
The earliest times to 373.915 A. D. 


Il. The Middle Period. 


g.10.0.0.0 1 Ahau 8 Kayab to 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax. 
Katun 1 Ahau to Katun 4 Ahau. 


373-915 A. D. to 472.480 A. D. 


IIl. The Great Period. 


g.15.0.0.0 4 Ahau 13 Yax to 10.2.0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Ceh. 
Katun 4 Ahau to Katun 3 Ahau. 
472.480 A. D. to 610.471 A. D. 


THe New Empire 


IV. The Colonization Period. 


9.14.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Muan to 10.6.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Yax. 
Katun 6 Ahau to Katun 8 Ahau. 
452.767 A.D. to 689.323 A. D. 


V. The Transitional Period. 


10.6.0.0.0 8 Ahau 8 Yax to 11.1.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Mol. 
Katun 8 Ahau to Katun 4 Ahau. 
689.323 A. D. to 985.018 A. D. 


VI. The Renatssance Period. 


11.1.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Mol to 11.12.0.0.0 8 Ahau 3 Mol. 
Katun 4 Ahau to Katun 8 Ahau. 
985.018 A. D. to 1201.861 A. D. 


VII. The Toltec Period. 


11.12.0.0.0 8 Ahau 3 Mol to 12.5.0.c.0 8 Ahau 3 Pax, 
Katun 8 Ahau to Katun 8 Ahau. 
1201.861 A. D. to 1458.130 A. D. 


VIII. The Final Period. 


12.5.0.0.0 8 Ahau 3 Pax to 12.9.5.0.0 6 Ahau 3 Mac. 
Katun 8 Ahau to Hotun 6 Ahau. 
1458.130 A. D. to 1541.910 A. D. 





1S$ee Morley, 19174. 


506 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


In utilizing the foregoing table it should be noted that the closing period of the 
Old Empire (i. ¢., the Great Period) was practically contemporaneous with the 
opening period of the New Empire (1. ¢., the Colonization Period), that 1s, the 
latter covers the time during which Yucatan was being colonized from the Old 
Empire cities, the decline and extinction of the one being coincident with the 
rise of the other; and further that the two main epochs of Maya history, the Old 
and the New Empires are not only chronological subdivisions but also that the area 
covered by each corresponds to a definite geographical unit as well, the former 
being restricted to the southern half of the Maya region, and the latter to the 
northern half, the Peninsula of Yucatan. Finally, that the several periods into 
which each is divided agree closely, not only with the archzological evidence—the 
monuments, architecture and art—but also with the documentary evidence—the 
u kahlay katunob in the Books of Chilan Balam. 


CORRELATION OF THE U KAHLAY KATUNOB AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY 
INDICATED BY PAGE 66 OF THE CHRONICLE OF OXKUTZCAB. 


In the seven events upon which the writer’s correlation of Christian chronology 
and the u kahlay katunob is based, it will be noted that the native authorities pay 
no attention to the month-days on which the corresponding katuns ended. Thus 
all agree that Merida was founded in a Katun 11 Ahau, but what particular Katun 
11 Ahau it was, 1. ¢., what was its corresponding month-part, not one specifies. 
Again, all agree that Bishop Toral arrived in a Katun 9 Ahau and that Bishop 
Landa died in a Katun 7 Ahau, but when it comes to the month-days of these two 
katun-endings, all the authorities are again silent. It is because these month-days 
are wanting that it was necessary to devise some other method of correlating the 
u kahlay katunob with the Initial Series, as, for example, the use of the Chichen Itza 
lintel already described. 

It must be remembered that as described in the u kahlay katunob, 1.e., without 
its corresponding Initial Series number and month-day, any given katun can recur 
after an interval of 256.27 years, but if its corresponding month-day is given, even 
though its Initial Series number be omitted, it can not recur until after a lapse of 
949 katuns or 18,707.70 years. ‘Therefore, had the month-days of the katuns in 
which these several events are said to have occurred also been recorded, assuming 
the record to be correct, a direct correlation between the u kahlay katunob and the 
Initial Series could have been easily effected. 

Unfortunately such was not the custom in the wu kahlay katunob, and in the single 
event, the death of Napot Xiu, where the month-position is also given, there is 
disagreement as to what it was, III, IV, and IX (?) giving 9 Imix 18 Zip, and V 
10 Zip, although by restoring the word waxac the last could be made to agree with the 
first three. But even granting this change in V, accepting the statements of III, 
IV, and IX that Napot Xiu died on a day g Imix 19 Zip which fell in a year 4 Kan, 
this event could not have taken place in 1536, as stated in III and IV, but in 1545 
instead, unless indeed we throw over the great preponderance of the evidence, which, 
save for these three passages, agrees that the latter part of 1536 was in a year 8 
Cauac, and not ina year 4 Kan. 

To do this would be to violate too many authorities, and it may be accepted as 
certain that Napot Xiu did not die either in a year 4 Kan or on a day g Imix 19 
Zip. In fact, the only consistent feature of these three passages is that 9 Imix 
1g Zip did occur in a year 4 Kan; but association of this year with the Christian 
year 1536 and with a Katun 13 Ahau must be rejected as impossible in the light of 
practically all the other evidence. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 


507 


One of our 12 sources, however, page 66 from the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab (V), 
does give the month-parts of these period-ending dates in a modified form. That 
is, although no katun-ending is there specified, a series of 13 tun-endings is given, 
including not only the ending-days and their positions in the months, but also the 


Transcription and Translation of page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab. 


ORIGINAL. 
153. paxci cah tumen maya-cinlal lae ychil hab 1534 
ANOS womiike gsi 4 
. . . he tun tu vaxaclahun yaxkin-e hoyl kan 


ahcuch-hab tu hunte pop 
1535 ahau he tun tu vucte yaxkin-ne 1535 amos vac 
muluc ahcuch-hab tu 
hunte pop 
1536 he tun tu bulucte (pop)* ceh afios vuc hix ahcuch 
hab tu hunte pop ox ahau 
1537 tu vucte yaxkin-e 1537 anos vaxacil cavac tu hunte 
pop cinciob ah- 
pulhaob te otzmal-e heklaob lae ah-tz’un tutul 
xiu yetel ah-ciyah 
napuc chi ye. namay che ye. namay tun ye. 
ah-men evan ha..... 
vinicob te mani-e ahpulhaob ti chicheen ytza 
cuchi he u-putz’aho- 
b-e nahau veeh napot covoh tu lahun hi ¢ip 
lahca ahau hi he 
tun tu cate yaxkin-e bay bin kahebal 
1538 anos bolo kan ahcuch-hau tu hunte pop vchci 
chac-ykal u- ... 
hintah cimil lae vaxac ahau he tun tu vaclahun 
xul-e 
1539 anos lahun muluc tu hunte pop can ahau he tun 
tu buluc- 
te xul-e 
1540 anos buluc hix tu hunte pop oxlahun ahau he tun 
tu vucte xul-e 
1541 anos lahcabil cavac tu hunte pop bolon ahau he 
tun tu 
cate xul-e 
1542 anos oxlahun kan tu hunte pop-i u-hetz’ci cah 
espanoresob 
ti-hoo cahciob yaxhop’ci patanob-e tumen 
ah-maniob yet 
u-probinciail ho ahau tu vaclahunte ¢eec 
1543 anos hun muluc tu hunte pop cinciob ah-tz’itz’om- 
tun tumen 
u-katun espayoresob he u-capitannil-e alonso 
lopez (lahun)* 
hun ahau hi tu bulucte ¢eec ca hix u-hunte pop 
1544 anos lahun ahau tu vate ¢eec 
1545 afos oxlahun cavac tu hunte pop hop’ci Xpotia- 
noil tumen 
fraylecob vay ti cah lae he u-kaba u-padreillob 
lae fray 
luis villapando fray diego de vehar fray ju® 
de la puerta 
fray mechor de benabente fray ju° de herrera 
fray angel 
pocob-tok u-hetz’ahob te ti cah ti-ho-e 
vac ahau he tun tu hunte ¢eec 
helel en 29 de mayo de 1685 anos tin-hochah 
vchben hun heklae 
calacteres v-kaba Anares ten cen don 
D Juoan Xiu 


(ruibrica) 


TRANSLATION. 


[1533] The tun on 18 Yaxkin [2 Mol]. The town was 
desolated because of the Maya dead in the year 

1534, 5 Kan being the year-bearer, on Pop Ist, .. . 
Ahau the tun on 7 [17] Yaxkin. 

1535 6 Muluc the year-beare’, on Pop Ist,..... 
the tun on 11 Ceh [12 Yaxkin]. 


1536 7 Ix the year-bearer on Pop Ist, 3 Ahau [the tun] 
on 7 Yaxkin. 

8 Cauac on Pop Ist, when there died the rain- 
bringers at Otzmal, namely, Ahtz’un Tutul 
Xiu, and Ahziyah Napuc Chi, and Namay 
Che, and Namay Tun, and the priest Evan, 
PEE LP men at Mani they were, rain bringers 
at Chichén Itza, then, and there escaped 
Nahau Veeh, Napot Covoh; on the toth 
[? 18th] of Zip it took place, in 12 Ahau it was, 
the tun on 2 Yaxkin, that it may be remem- 


bered. 


1537 


9 Kan the year-bearer on Pop Ist, when there 
happened a hurricane [causing] death, 8 Ahau 
the tun on 16 [17] Xul. 


1538 


10 Muluc on Pop tst, 4 Ahau the tun on 11 [12] 


Xul. 


1539 


1540 11 Ix on Pop Ist, 13 Ahau the tun on [7 Xul.] 


1541 12 Cauac on Pop Ist, 9 Ahau the tun on 2 Xul. 


13 Kan on Pop tst, when the Spaniards founded 
the city Ti-Hoo [Merida], when they settled, 
and the tributes first began through those of 
Mani, and the province [was established], 
5 Ahau on 16 [17] Tzec. 

1 Muluc on Pop Ist, when there died those of 
Tzitz’omtun at the hands of the Spaniards 
in a battle, their captain being Alonso Lopez; 
1 Ahau it happened, [the tun] on 11 [12] 
Tzec. 

1544 2 Ix on Pop Ist, 10 Ahau on 6 [7] Tzec. 

1545 13 [3] Cauac on Pop Ist, when began Christianity 

through the friars here in the town; these 

were the names of the padres, fray Luis 

Villapando, fray Diego de Vehar, fray Juan 

de la Puerta, fray Mechor de Benabente, fray 

Juande ‘Herrera, fray Angel, 2... .’. 

they founded at the city, ti-Hoo, 6 Ahau the 

tun on 1 |2] Tzec. 


1542 


1543 


Now on the 29th of May in the year 1685 I have copied 
this from an ancient book, namely in char- 
acters as they are called, Anares. 

I, Don Juoan Xtv. 


508 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


year-bearers of the Maya years in which the corresponding tun-endings fell, and 
the corresponding Christian years as well. Now, if this series is correct, and if we 
can pick out one of these 13 tun-endings as that of a katun-ending as reli then a 
direct correlation with the Long Count may be effected, as noted above. 

This page of the Oxkutzcab chronicle 1s shown in figure 72, and the writer is 
indebted to Mr. William Gates for the transcription and translation of the Maya 
text given on the preceding page, as well as for the following notes. 


Notes sy Mr. GareEs. 


Letters restored where the margin is torn are in italics in the Maya text. Dots mark 
the places where something is gone that can not be restored. No attempt has been made 
to change or correct, even when the meaning requires it; the reading at beginning of line 
2 should thus be ahau, though the manuscript does not yield the needed letters. In the 
transcription hyphens have been added to assist the reading. 

‘The words pop in line 5 and Jahun in line 24 are crossed out in the manuscript by Juan 
Xiu, and corrected to ceh and hun respectively (marked by an asterisk (*) in the Maya text.) 

There are a number of errors in the day and month numerals, difficult to account for 
if Juan Xiu was copying a text in European letters, but easy to understand if he was trans- 
' lating and copying from a “very ancient book in characters, an analtehe.” Under 1545 
oxlahun cauac, 13 Cauac, should be ox cauac, 3 Cauac. 

The errors in the months will best appear from a tabulation, the first column showing 
what is actually written, and the second column what is clearly demanded by the whole text. 
In this connection, we find the first five lines much confused. An Ahau date for the tun is 
needed before the beginning of the fifth line, and also the 1536 in the margin is to be repeated 
before the afios in the middle of the fifth line. Then the 1534 in the first line should be 
brought down to before the 5 Kan in the second, throwing the first tun and month date back 
under the year 1533, in default of which correction we would have 1534 supplied with one 
year-bearer and two tun dates. Making the above allowances in arrangement, we have: 


As in the original. Corrected. 
1533 18 Yaxkin. 4 Cauac 2 Ahau~ 2 Mol. 
1534 5 Kan Ahau-— 7 Yaxkin. 5 Kan 11 Ahau 17 Yaxkin. 
TS3k 6 Muluc Saat 11 Ceh. 6 Muluc 7 Ahau_ 12 Yaxkin. 
1536 + hal b 3 Ahau 7 Yaxkin. mulx 3 Ahau 7 Yaxkin. 
1537 8 Cauac 12 Ahau- 2 Yaxkin. 8: Cauac a2 °Ahau> p20 Yaxkur 
1538 9 Kan 8 Ahau 16 Xul. 9 Kan 8 Ahau 17 Xul. 
1539 10 Muluc 4 Ahau_ 11 Xul. 10 Muluc 4 Ahau_ 12 Xul. 
1640/5 SLi alx 12 PAA ea ie {yeiz 13) Aliag 9e7 nul 
Isat" 512, Gaude g Ahau = 2 Xul. 12 Cauac g Ahau 2 Xul. 
1642) 14 on 5 Ahau_ 16 Tzec. 13 Kan 5 Ahau 17 T[zec. 
1543 1 Muluc 1 Ahau_ 11 Tzec. 1 Muluc 1 Ahau_ 12 Tzec. 
1544 2x 1o Ahau_ 6 Tzec. ZA 1o Ahau_7 Tzec. 
iS45 14 alae 6 Ahau 1 Tzec. 4 Cauac 6 Ahau 2 Tzec. 


In the 13 years we therefore have one error in day-numerals, which may be disregarded; 
no errors at all in the Ahau count; seven cases where the month-numeral is minus 1, one 
where it is minus 10, four where it is correct, and one where it is plus 1; besides the confusion 
between Ceh and Yaxkin at the beginning. It is curious that in more than half of the entries 
this minus-1 error should occur; one can hardly suspect Juan Xiu of misreading the numerals 
regularly with just that error, but is tempted to surmise a confusion in transcribing, between 
two systems, one that of the original, the other one familiar to the Xiu, into which he sought 
to transfer the entries as pointed out elsewhere in this Appendix by Morley. The 18 
Yaxkin is, however, the only figure correct under the old count, and the 1, 6, 11, 16 coefh- 
cients are wrong for either the old or the new. 

One further possible error should be noted, of especial interest in the present connection. 
We have already found vucte for vuclahunte (under 1534), and oxlahun, a glaring error for 
ox (under 1545); and if then we see in Jahun gip, 10 Zip as the day of the month in 1536 when 
the Otzmal event took place, a scribal error for vaxaclahun ¢ip, or 18 Zip, we have the exact 
day of the month given by the Mani, Tizimin, and first Chumayel texts, for the death of the 
water-bringer Napot Xiu. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 509 


1534. [he words ychil hab 1534 amos require us to place the desolation and death just 
spoken of in that year, and not in 1533, as might have been meant had the words ychil hab 
not been used. If, as is quite likely, this desolation refers to the famine after a drought, 
followed by the locusts, as related by Landa, we may fairly put the failure of the rains in the 
season of 1533-34, bringing hunger later in 1534. With relations between the Cocom and 
Xiu as they are shown to have been, the projected mission to Chichen Itza would hardly 
have followed at once on a single year’s drought; but after two years’ continued famine, or 
just before the time for the rains in 1536, the urgency would have been pressing. 

The word cah, generally translated town or city, means rather more than that, a place 
of habitation, and may refer to wider territory; it corresponds closely in general value to the 
Spanish pueblo or poblacién. 

Several archaisms in the language are to be noted, as cinlal, cinciob, for cimlal, cimciob: 
also the frequent use of the preposition ¢e for ti, as we find it has come down in a few place- 
names in Yucatan like Tekax. 

1537. | have translated ahpulhaob as rain-bringers, although with some doubts; pul 
has at times the meaning to throw away, whence a translation ‘“‘water-throwers”’ (that is, 
into the cenote at Chichen Itza) has been suggested for its meaning here. But this has the 
disadvantage of making the water the indirect object, for which I can find no support. 
Further, the constant use of the word pul is as meaning to bring; it is used in a long list of 
compounds involving witchcraft, where it means to bring about the thing purposed, as a 
disease; and finally the identical compound pu/-ha also means to bring water, in the sense of 
to urinate. As the purpose of the mission to the cenote was to bring the rains, although this 
happened to be through a throwing into the water, I am inclined to give it this magical inter- 
pretation, as one more in the Maya spirit, both grammatically and culturally. 

Although the ah-tz’un Tutul Xiu is not here named ah-pulha Napot Tutul Xiu, one can 
hardly doubt that such was his full title and name, and that the two persons are identical. 
The ah-tz’un is one who leads, who opens the way through, passing on the road; he was one of 
the “ah-pulhaob,” and was also the ruler of Mani, the halach-vinic, as stated on page 85 of the 
Chumayel; also, as stated in this latter passage, he not only died with the others at Otzmal, 
but was killed there; a tragedy going to the very roots of history and fate for the Maya, a 
thing ‘“‘to be recorded and remembered” for its very day. 

None of the other sources say anything about the escape of any of those on the mission 
to Otzmal (save the ah-kin Chi, who, according to Cogolludo, was blinded and spared by 
the Cocom to carry back the story); but as the essential letters in u-putz’ahob-e are quite 
clear, I have restored the word as given. 

1542. This being a record of the Mani princes, their aid to the Spaniards in the matter 
of tribute-laying is here noted. 

1545. [his list of names is interesting, though different from those usually found; not 
all of those here named came together at this time. 

I have left the word pocob-tok untranslated; the rendering “‘in the ruins’ has been 
suggested, but on what grounds I can not see. The root poc means to wash, and is used of 
washing away one’s sins; tok means to draw blood, also the flint-knife used for that purpose. 


Recapitulating these chronological data on page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutz- 
cab, changing the accompanying Christian years to conform to the beginnings of 
the corresponding Maya years instead of the endings as recorded, and finally correct- 
ing the month coefficients from 2, 7, 12, and 17 to 3, 8, 13, and 18, respectively, so 
as to conform to the Old Empire usage, we have: 


Tun 2Ahau 3 Mol — ended inthe year 4 Cauac, which began in July 1532. 
Tun 11 Ahau 18 Yaxkin ended in the year 5 Kan, _ which began in July 1533. 
Tun 7 Ahau 13 Yaxkin ended in the year 6 Muluc, which began in July 1534. 
Tun 3 Ahau 8 Yaxkin ended in the year 7 Ix, which began in July 1535. 
Tun 12 Ahau 3 Yaxkin ended in the year 8 Cauac, which began in July 1536. 
Tun 8 Ahau18 Xul — ended inthe year 9g Kan, which began in July 1537. 
Tun 4 Ahau 13 Xul — ended in the year 10 Muluc, which began in July 1538. 
Tun 13 Ahau 8 Xul — ended in the year 11 Ix, which began in July 1539. 
Tun g Ahau 3 Xul _ ended in the year 12 Cauac, which began in July 1540. 
Tun 5 Ahau18 Tzec ended in the year 13 Kan, which began in July 1541. 
Tun 1 Ahau 13 Tzec ended inthe year 1 Muluc, which began in July 1542. 
Tun 10 Ahau 8 Tzec ended inthe year 2 Ix, which began in July 1543. 
Tun 6Ahau 3 Tzec_ ended in the year 3 Cauac, which began in July 1544. 


510 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The next question is, which if any of these 13 tun-endings was a katun-ending 
as well. We have seen that the only katun which could possibly have ended be- 
tween the years 1532 and 1544 according to any of our sources was a Katun 13 Ahau, 
and looking for a twn of this same name in the above table, we find that Tun 13 
Ahau 8 Xul in the year 11 Ix ended in 1539; that is to say, under this assumption 
Katun 13 Ahau 8 Xul ended in 1539. 

Turning next to Goodman’s tables, it will be found that such a katun occurred 
in 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul, and further, that a Katun 13 Ahau 8 Xul could not 
recur either before or after that date until after a lapse of 18,707.70 years. ‘There- 
fore, if these data and assumptions are correct, the Katun 13 Ahau for which the 
writer has suggested the Initial Series 12.9.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Kankin is not that at all, 
but is 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul instead, and further, it did not end in 1536 but in 
1539. Under this correlation, therefore, the dates in the foregoing tables of equiva- 
lents would all be 259 years later. ‘This point should be clearly borne in mind, for 
if the data given in V are correct, and represent a section of an unbroken sequence 
of the tuns straight back to the period of the Old Empire, then this correlation 

rests on firmer ground than that suggested in the foregoing pages. As will appear 
later, however, after the archeological evidence has been presented, this is almost 
certainly not the case, and the correlation indicated by V must be rejected on the 
grounds of archzologic and historic improbability. 

The principal point at issue here is whether the Katun 13 Ahau in which Napot 
Xiu died was 13 Ahau 8 Kankin, as the writer believes, or 13 Ahau 8 Xul, as V 
apparently is to be interpreted as indicating, and it will now be shown that the 
historical evidence presented by the u kahlay katunob themselves precludes the 
latter possibility: 

(1) If 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul be substituted for the Katun 13 Ahau of Napot Xiu’s 
death in the u kahlay katunob on page 499, it will be found that the katun of the Chichen 
Itza lintel, namely, 10.3.0.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Yaxkin, will fall some 2 centuries after Chichen Itza 
is definitely stated to have been abandoned, and after the Itza had moved to Chakanputun, 
and a century before Chakanputun is stated to have been abandoned and the Itza had 
returned to Chichen Itza and established themselves there a second time. In short, this 
correlation would make the Chichen Itza lintel date from a Katun 1 Ahau, in which the city 
is definitely stated to have been unoccupied. 

(2) If 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul be substituted for the Katun 13 Ahau of Napot Xiu’s 
death, then Chichen Itza was discovered in 9.1.0.0.0 6 Ahau 13 Kayab, a date actually prior 
to the earliest date at Copan, and earlier than all the Old Empire dates save only the very 
earliest at Uaxactun and Tikal, clearly an impossible condition from the historic point of 
view, since it makes Chichen Itza the contemporary of Tikal, Copan, and the other Old 
Empire cities, instead of subsequent to them, as was actually the case. 

(3) If 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul be substituted for the Katun 13 Ahau of Napot Xiu’s 
death, then the opening entry of the u kahlay katunob on page 499 occurred in 8.7.0.0.0, at 
which time it may well be doubted whether the Maya had yet reached their historic habitat 
during the Old Empire, since the earliest date in that region, 8.14.10.13.15 on Stela g at 
Uaxactun, is a century and a half later. 


But in addition to the several anachronisms which this correlation develops 
in the wu kahlay katunob, there are others in the monuments equally if not more 
serious. 

(4) The central capstone of the outer chamber of the East Range of the Monjas Quad- 
rangle at Uxmal presents the following date (see figure 74): 5 Imix 19! Kankin falling in a 


Tun 18 of a Katun 13, the first two glyphs in the upper line recording the date, and the first 
two in the lower line the tun and katun in which it occurred. The only place where this 


1The original appears to have 18, which has been changed to 1g here in order to conform with the Old Empire 
chronology. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. Sil 


date could occur within a range of several hundred thousand years was at 11.12'.17.11.1 
5 Imix 19 Kankin, or 3.2.6.19 earlier than 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul, or, according to the 
Oxkutzcab correlation of the two chronologies, in 1478. But by this latter date Uxmal had 
already been abandoned for more than 30 years; hence this correlation flatly contradicts 
the evidence furnished by this lintel. 





Fic. 74.—Inscription on capstone in outer chamber at northern end of East Range of 
Monjas Quadrangle at Uxmal. 


(5) The ring on the east wall of the Ball Court at Uxmal presents the following date 
(see figure 75, a) 10? Ix 17 Pop in Tun 17 ending on the day 12 Ahau. The Initial Series 
corresponding to this date is 11.15.16.12.14 10 Ix 17 Pop, or only 3.5.6 earlier than 11.16.0.0.0 
13 Ahau 8 Xul, that is, 1536 in the Oxkutzcab correlation. But by this latter date Uxmal 
had already been abandoned nearly a century, and the Spaniards had already made their 
first unsuccessful attempt to subjugate the country; hence this correlation flatly contradicts 
the evidence furnished by the inscription on this ring. 

(6) Finally, the south column in front of the sanctuary of the High Priest’s Grave at 
Chichen Itza presents the following Period Ending date (see figure 76): 2 Ahau 18 Xul, 
End of Tun 11. The only Tun 11 in a period of 18,707.70 years which ended on this date 
was I1.19.11.0.0 2 Ahau 18 Xul or 3.11.0.0 later than 11.16.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Xul, 2. ¢., in 1609. 
But by this latter date Chichen Itza had already been abandoned for more than a century 
and a half, and in fact the whole country had been under the Spanish rule for 67 years. This 
is reductio ad absurdum, and compels the rejection of the Oxkutzcab correlation as the proper 
alinement of the Long Count with Christian Chronology. 


EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CORRELATION INDICATED 
BY THE CHRONICLE OF OXKUTZCAB AND THAT SUGGESTED HERE. 


If, however, the foregoing historical and archeological evidence necessitates 
the rejection of this correlation, we are nevertheless still confronted with the 
equally indisputable fact that such a chronology was actually in use at the time of 
the Spanish Conquest, as clearly proved by page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab. 
Here is a serious difference indeed between equally creditable evidence. The 
Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, as we have seen, is one of our most reliable sources, and the 
page in question was nie by the great-great-great-great-grandson of Napot Xiu, 
a century and a half after the latter’s death, from an ancient book, presumably a 
family possession. Such a source as this can not be overlooked nor disregarded, 
particularly since the year-bearers which it gives agree exactly with those in almost 
all of the other sources. And yet we have just seen that even though this chrono- 
logy seems to have been in use among the Xiu at the time of the conquest, as soon 
as we apply it to the u kahlay katunob and even to Xiu monuments such as the 
Uxmal lintel and ring, it immediately gives rise to impossible conditions. What, 





1The katun coefficient actually recorded is 13, which is correct, since 5 Imix 19 Kankin (11.12.17.11.1), falls 
in the katun ending on 11.13.0.0.0 and not in that ending on 11.12.0.0.0. Similarly the tun coefficient recorded 
is 18, not 17, since 5 Imix 19 Kankin (11.12.17.11.1), falls in the tun ending on 18.0.0 and not in that ending on 
17.0.0. 

2Although the day-sign coefficient is effaced, it will appear later that it could only have been ro. 

3The original has 16, which has been changed to 17 to conform to the Old Empire usage. 


512 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


then, is the explanation of this apparent paradox, a chronological system known to 
have been in use at the time of the Spanish Conquest which nevertheless can not be 
made to fit the u kahlay katunob and the monuments? 

The writer believes the correct explanation of this apparently irreconcilable 
difference is that at the time of the Spanish Conquest there were two systems in 
use in Yucatan, one, which we may call the Itza, the direct descendant, as it were, 
of the Old Empire chronology, and the other, which we may call the Xiu, a mongrel 
system which had arisen not more than three centuries earlier at the outside, and 
possibly not more than a century, and was the result of grafting a system of current 
time-periods like the Nahua 365-day years on to a system of elapsed time-periods 
like the Maya katuns and tuns. This latter system, which could not have been 
introduced in Yucatan prior to 1200 A. D., is that used in the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, 
and thus does not afford an unbroken line back to the Old Empire, as does the first in 
which the sequence of the katuns had been preserved intact in the u kahlay katunob back 
to the beginnings of those records. 

Let us examine this evidence somewhat further. As has been pointed out 
_ frequently in the foregoing pages, the positions of the days in the months underwent 
a change some time during the New Empire, shifting forward one position. Thus, 
for example, in the Old Empire, Ahau always has a corresponding month-coeficient 
of 3, 8, 13, or 18, but at the close of the New Empire in the u kahlay katunob we 
find it used with a month coefficient of 2, 7, 12, or 17, one day earlier. Again, in 
the Old Empire, Imix always has a month coefficient of 4, 9, 14, or 19, but in the 
u kahlay katunob it appears with 3, 8, 13, or 18, one day earlier; and so on through- 
out the 20 day-signs. 

It is our first task, then, to find out when this shift occurred. Throughout 
all known Old Empire texts, and in most New Empire ones as well, as will appear 
shortly, the month coefficients of Ahau are always 3, 8, 13, or 18; hence this shift 
did not take place until after the Maya had reached Yucatan. 

During the field season of 1918 the writer collected a dozen or more texts 
bearing upon this point from New Empire sites; 14 are enumerated below, and in 
all save 2 the month coefficients follow the Old Empire positions: 








No. Site. Monument. Day-sign. Month-position. System. 
15) Usemalcerare Balt Court. cco tia. tone oe LXes cnn $7 OD. Sara Old. 
2\\eUsxinal ee ee Ball. Coarti eee ee eee Lx. ca Oe 16 Pops. ee New. 
2) | sUxmal aes Monjas Quadrangle East Range..| Imix......... 18 Kankin...... New. 
4‘) Uxnial pene: Monjas Quadrangle North Range| Eb...........| 5 Ceh.......... Old. 
5 | opilaate er ieee eels: Coc. iets ly poe eee Mubus itch. 

6 | Holactun....} Temple of Initial Series......... TL Xce eee ee ee Rnd oe 
7 | Holactun....| Temple of Initial Series......... Cib or Cahanty ta toe cee eae 
8 | Chichen Itza.| Temple of Initial Series......... Mulues.), 4 ext! (9 Zates seer eee 
g | Chichen Itza.} Lintel at care rata silsis aincacf ) AM kde ne ey ae SoG eee 
10 | Chichen Itza.}| High Priest’s Grave............ Ahiathess sue atayi Poel ee ee 
11 | Chichen Itza.| Temple of Two Lintels......... Fanabiciceee| Al) Yana gees 
12-| Chichen l¢zas|s.lemplerat.Ula qe tee eee Jitix, i4d.cdecl) nh Lees han anak 
13 |] Chichen Teza.) Temple at Ula... ..<.. ... sagen EB... 55.05 :sane of kOok OD eee oe 
i4:| Tuluum?. Scelacdgh. Pesos eee eee ee Ahau.. te oecleks Pax eee 





Further exploration and excavation would doubtless bring others to light, but 
on the basis of the evidence now available, we see that only two of the above 
fourteen texts, Nos. 2 and 3, both from Uxmal, surely follow the New Empire usage, 
one (No. 7) being doubtful. In this last case the day-sign may be either Cib or 
Caban, and, if it is the former, the corresponding month-coefficient, which is 4, agrees 
with the Old Empire usage; if it is the latter, the New Empire usage is indicated. 
However, as Ix occurs in this same text with a corresponding month-coefiicient of 2 
(No. 6), the Old Empire usage probably obtained here. 


— 1 eo 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 513 


The foregoing examples, even omitting the two aberrant ones, Nos. 2 and 3, 
include all five groups of month-coefficients, Eb representing the 0, 5, 10, or IS 
group; Eznab the 1, 6, 11, or 16 group; Kan, Muluc, and Ix the 2, 7, 12, and 17 
group; Ahau the 3, 8, 13, and 18 group; and Imix and possibly Cib the 4, 9, 14, and 
Ig group. 

The two examples following the New Empire usage, Nos. 2 and 3, have been 
mentioned before (see figure 75, a, and figure 74 respectively). Both, it should be 
noted, are from Uxmal, the great western Maya metropolis at the close of the New 
Empire, and both are of late date, 11.15.16.12.14 (1277 A.D.) and 11.12.17.11.1 
(1219 A. D.), that is, after the fall of Chichen Itza and the end of the League of 
Mayapan. 

While most of the other twelve are certainly earlier (Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, and 14 
certainly so, and Nos. 5, 9, 12, and 13 probably so), at least one, No. 10 at Chichen 
Itza, the great eastern Maya metropolis of the New Empire, is surely Jater, having 
the date, I11.19.11.0.0 (1350 A. D.). 

Before analyzing these data on the monuments, let us examine the three pre- 
Columbian Maya manuscripts now known, the Codices Dresdensis, Tro-Cortesia- 
nus, and Peresianus. 

In the Codex Dresdensis the month-signs, which are scattered throughout the 
manuscript, being particularly frequent on pages 24 and 46 to 50, which deal with 
the Venus-Solar period of 2,920 days, all conform to the Old Empire usage. 

In the Codex Tro-Cortesianus only one month-sign, Cumhu, has been identi- 
fied in the Calendar Round date 13 Ahau 13 Cumhu on page 73, D, but this is sufh- 
cient to fix the system there used as the same as that in the Old Empire. 

Unfortunately, in the Codex Peresianus, the only three month-signs there 
identifiable, 16 Zac on page 4, 1 Yaxkin on page 7, and 12 Cumhu on page 18, are 
not associated with days, although it is not improbable that the first may be pre- 
ceded by an unspecified day Akbal;' if so, this codex also conforms to the Old 
Empire usage. 

A review of the foregoing archzological evidence, the monuments, and the 
codices establishes the following points: 

(1) That all the archeological evidence, save that presented on two texts alone, indicates 
that the positions of the days in the months remained unchanged throughout 
the course of Maya history, in the New Empire as well as in the Old. 

(2) That the two texts which do not agree with the above are both from the same site, 
Uxmal, and both postdate the fall of Chichen Itza and the first introduction 
of Nahua influence into Yucatan. 


(3) That in the east, at least at Chichen Itza, this shift had not taken place down to 
1350 A. D. although it is found at Uxmal more than a century earlier. 


Turning next to the post-conquest sources, the Books of Chilan Balam, it is 
evident that by the time they were written this shift of one day forward had been 
made everywhere, Ahau always having a month-coefhicient of 2, 7, 12, or 17 and 
Imix of 3, 8, 13, or 18, etc. 

The Books of Chilan Balam are so full of examples of this kind that it is only 
necessary to cite a few cases here. See the entries describing Event C in III, IV, 
and IX; six of the thirteen tun-endings in V, the Calendar Round date 11 Chuen 
18 Zac on pages 115 and 8 of the Books of Chilan Balam of Mani and Tizimin 
respectively; the Calendar Round date 5 Ahau 17 Tzec on pages 101 and 1 of the 
Books of Chilan Balam of Mani and Tizimin respectively, and others too numerous 
to require further citation. 





1This day-sign has no coefficient, but it is exactly like the column of the 13 days Akbal on page 20 of the same 
codex, and it must be regarded as Akbal if the others are. 


S14 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Taking into consideration all the evidence, archzological as well as historical, 
the following general conclusion appears justifiable: 

The shift in the positions of the days in the months did not take place until the close of 
the New Empire. Even in the west, at Uxmal, where it first appears, no trace of it is found 
before the fall of Chichen Itza in Katun 8 Ahau (1182-1201 a. D.), when the Nahua influence 
seems to have been introduced into Yucatan for the first time. In the east at Chichen Itza, 
Tuluum, Silan, etc., it does not appear at all. After the conquest, however, in the Books of 
Chilan Balam it entirely replaced the Old Empire system, and the latter seems to have 
been forgotten. 


But the writer believes the date of this change may be determined even more 
exactly, at Uxmal at least, than as having occurred some time after 1182-1201. 

The fall of Chichen Itza took place between 1182 and 1201 A. D., that is, some time 
during that Katun 8 Ahau (see page 499). Now, the lintel in the outer chamber 
of the East Range of the Monjas Quadrangle at Uxmal we have already seen dates 
from 11.12.17.11.1 5 Imix 18 Kankin, 7.¢., 1219 A. D., the month-coefficient conform- 
ing to the New Empire system. ‘Therefore, some time between 1182, the beginning 
of Katun 8 Ahau, and 1219, when this lintel was dated, the shift in the month- 
‘coefficients was introduced at Uxmal; indeed, 58 years later, when the Ball Court 
was erected there, occasion was taken to record the date of its dedication in both 
Systems. 

Let us examine this construction next, the inscriptions on the rings of which 
are given in figure 75, a and b. The Ball Court was a purely Nahuan institution, 
and on archeological grounds alone, buildings of this type can hardly have been 
erected in Yucatan before 1200. In fact, only two ball courts are known in the 
whole Maya area, the large one at Chichen Itza and the small one here at Uxmal. 





a 


Fic. 75.—Parts of inscription on rings of Ball Court at Uxmal: a, northern side of eastern ring; 
b, northern side of western ring. 


The inscriptions on the rings of the latter appear to record the same date in 
terms of both the Old and New Empire systems. That on the north side of the 
east ring (figure 75, a) begins with a day Ix (the coefficient, a head-variant, is 
unfortunately destroyed). This is followed by the month 16 Pop, the month- 
coefhcient (7. ¢., 16) on this ring thus conforming to the New Empire usage after the 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 515 


shift had taken place. Next comes an ending-sign, and next Tun 17 ending on the 
day 12 Ahau. Assuming that this shift of one in the month-coefficient, 7. ¢., from 
17 to 16, made no corresponding difference in the position of this date in the Long 
Count, it can be shown that there are only two Tuns 17 ending on the day 12 Ahau 
which contained any day Ix, which fell on 17 Pop. These are: 

11.15.17.0.0 12 Ahau 3 Yaxkin, in which tun fell 11.15.16.12.14 10 Ix 17 Pop. 

12. 8.17.0.0 12 Ahau 3 Muan, in which tun fell 12. 8.16. 4.14 6 Ix 17 Pop. 

Of these, only the first is possible here, since the second in the writer’s corre- 
lation represents either the close of 1533 or early in 1534, and in that indicated by V. 
1793. Therefore the missing coefficient of Ix may be restored as Io. 

The inscription on the north side of the west ring (see figure 75, b) begins with 
a day Ix, the coefficient of which is a head-variant numeral, probably ro (note the 
remains of the fleshless lower jaw). Next follows clearly and unmistakably 17 Pop, 
next the same ending-sign as on the opposite ring, and next the 2 dots and first 2 
bars of the coefficient of Tun 17, and then comes the break.!' Although the rest of 
this text is missing, its identity, so far as it goes, with that on the other ring is so evi- 
dent that the date recorded here is almost surely the same as that on the other ring, 
with this one important difference: on the west ring the month-coefficient of Ix is 
given as 17, conforming to the Old Empire usage, whereas on the east ring it is given 
as 16, conforming to the New Empire usage after the shift had taken place. 

This double entry of what appears to be exactly the same date, the writer 
believes, is best to be interpreted as a sort of Maya Rosetta stone, a double record 
of the same date in terms of both the Old and New Empire systems; and further- 
more, since these two dates, save for their month-coefhcients, are otherwise identical, 
it is to be assumed that this change was accomplished without the loss of a single 
day of the tonalamatl (1. ¢., the 260-day period), and that consequently the naming 
of the katuns in the u kahlay katunob underwent no corresponding change, an 
extremely important point. 

If this interpretation is correct, it answers the question as to when this shift 
in the month-coefficients took place, but it gives no hint as to the causes which may 
have brought it about; and to answer this latter question it is first necessary to 
review the subject of the Maya year-bearers. 

Although the positions of the days in the months underwent a shift of but a 
single day, as we have seen, the Maya year-bearers appear to have shifted twice 
during the 15 centuries of Maya history, first 1 day forward from the Ik, Manik, 
Eb, and Caban group to the Akbal, Lamat, Ben, and Eznab group, and second 1 
day forward from the latter group to the Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac group, which 
was that in use at the time of the Spanish Conquest. 

As to the use of the first group, although we have no direct evidence that Ik, 
Manik, Eb, and Caban were used as year-bearers during the Old Empire, there is 
ample evidence that the haab during this period could only have begun with one 
of these four day-signs. 

In the most ancient Maya inscription known, the Tuxtla Statuette, what may 
have been the beginning of the 365-day year in those remote times may be recorded 
in the date 8.6.2.4.17 8 Cabano Kankin. In any case this indicates that in the oldest 
text known, the months, and hence also the years, began with one or other of the 
days of this group. 

Again, it has already been suggested (page 101, note 1) that the three dates: 
13 Manik o Yaxkin on a pier in the western court of the Palace Group at Palenque, 


1It is possible that the Tun 17 may be omitted here, and that this may be the 12 of 12 Ahau, the day on 
which this Tun 17 ended, although this hardly appears probable in view of the similarity of the preceding glyphs. 





516 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


1 Eb o Yaxkin on Lintel 9 at Yaxchilan, and 8.14.3.1.12 1 Eb o Yaxkin on the Ley- 
den Plate (see figure 17, a, b, and c, respectively) all may have been Maya New 
Year’s days at onetime. ‘There is some linguistic basis for this belief, since Xul, the 
month immediately preceding Yaxkin, means end or close in Maya, while Yaxkin 
itself means new sun or fresh sun, perhaps indicating the winter solstice, and shortly 
before the birth of Christ the beginning of Yaxkin coincided with the winter solstice 
on the basis of July 16, 1553, being equal to the first day of Pop. ‘The three dates 
in figure 17 under this hypothesis were therefore New Year’s days. 

Coming down to the Great Period of the Old Empire, there are indications 
that by this time the beginning of the Maya haab had become fixed aso Pop. On 
Altar U at Copan we have already seen that two consecutive New Year’s days were 
recorded, 9.15.8.10.12 2 Eb 0 Pop, and 9.15.9.10.17 3 Caban o Pop (see pp. 306, 307); 
and at Tikal there is the New Year’s Day 9.15.12.11.12! 6 Eb o Pop. 

Finally, Caban and Ik are the only two day-signs known which are ever used 
as the variable element in the Initial Series introducing glyph, the former appearing 
in that sign in the Initial Series on the tablet of the Temple of the Foliated Cross at 
- Palenque and the latter in the same position in the same sign on the tablet of the 
Temple of the Cross, also at Palenque. And in this connection it will be remem- 
bered that at Copan and Quirigua these same two day-signs, and especially the 
former, have an importance second only to that of Ahau. Witness the frequency 
of the date 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol at Copan and of 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 
Kayab at Quirigua. Indeed, so far as the inscriptions are concerned, there can be 
no doubt but that the days of this group enjoyed a greater importance than all 
other Maya days except Ahau; and further, that the months, and hence the haab 
or 365-day periods, always began either with a day Caban, Ik, Manik, and Eb, the 
first probably being the most important of the four.’ 

Since the years could only begin with one of these four day-signs in the Old 
Empire, it would appear safe to conclude that if the custom of having year-bearers 
prevailed in the Old Empire at all, the year-bearers must have been Ik, Manik, Eb, 
and Caban. This is only indirect evidence, it is true, but in default of direct evi- 
dence bearing thereon, it may probably be accepted as indicating that these four day- 
signs were the dorian or year-bearers in use during the Old Empire. 

At some later time, probably during the New Empire, a shift of one day for- 
ward took place, the Akbal, Lamat, Ben, and Eznab group replacing the Ik, Manik, 
Eb, and Caban group in the opening position of the year. The evidence for this 
change is presented on pages 25 to 28 of the Codex Dresdensis and on pages 19 and 
20 of the Codex Peresianus, both of which probably emanate from Yucatan, and 
probably date from before the fall of Chichen Itza in Katun 8 Ahau, 1182-1201 A. D. 

Nearly 40 years ago Thomas pointed out’ that these pages of the Dresden manu- 
script refer to the ceremonies which took place at the beginnings of the 365-day 
years or haab, which are elaborately described by Landa;* and since there were 
four different day-names with which the year could begin, each one of these pages 
is devoted to the ceremonies proper to one of these four kinds of years. These four 
pages are identical in arrangement. On the left side of each is a column of 26 day- 
signs, all without coefficients. On page 25, the first 13 are Eb, the last 13 are Ben; 
on page 26, the first 13 are Caban, the last 13 Eznab; on page 27, the first 13 are 





1Bowditch (1910, p. 206) gives the Initial Series number of this date as 10.0.18.1.12 6 Eb 0 Pop, but on insufh- 
cient evidence, the writer believes. As a matter of fact, the text on which this Calendar Round date 6 Eb o 
Pop occurs begins with another Calendar Round date, 3 Ahau 3 Mol, which can hardly be other than the lahuntun- 
ending 9.15.10.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Mol, which is less than 3 years earlier than the Initial Series chosen by the writer 
for 6 Eb o Pop. 

*Goodman (1897), in the preface to his Archaic Annual Calendar, also states that although he begins the latter 
with the day Ik, there are strong grounds for believing that the series really began with Caban. 

’Thomas, 1882, pp. 67, et seq. 4Landa, 1881, pp. 81-90. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 517 


Ik, the last 13 Akbal; and on page 28, the first 13 are Manik, the last 13 are Lamat. 
It will be perceived that these are the ending-days and beginning-days of a series 
of 52 years (1. ¢., 4 X 13) which began on the days Ben, Eznab, Akbal, and Lamat 
and ended on the days Eb, Caban, Ik, and Manik respectively. The beginning- 
days and the ending-days of each group are repeated 13 times in order that the four 
groups may make a total of §2 or all the year-bearers possible. 

The arrangement of the rest of these pages confirms Thomas’s identification 
here. In the upper third to the right of the column of day-signs are four tiger- 
headed deities, practically the same throughout. The middle thirds are filled 
either with the deities who have presided over the preceding years or those who are 
to preside over the current years, and the bottom thirds with the deities of the 
current years or those of the preceding years, depending upon which those in the 
middle thirds are, which agrees with these ceremonies as described by Landa. 

It is evident from the foregoing that we have on these four pages of the Codex 
Dresdensis a record of the ceremonies which were appropriate to the beginnings of 
the four kinds of Maya years, and further, that some time Jater than the Old Empire, 
but before this manuscript was composed, the year-bearers had shifted forward 
one day, 1. ¢., from the Old Empire group of Caban, Ik, Manik, and Eb to the Eznab, 
Akbal, Lamat, and Ben group. 

The Codex Peresianus shows the same condition. On pages Ig and 20 of that 
manuscript a series of 52 year-bearers is recorded, beginning with 1 Lamat! and 
ending with 13 Akbal, the order of reading being in lines from left to right across 
the two pages as though they were but one, and from top to bottom, the series 
being continuous, the first year-bearer on page 19, 1 Lamat, following immediately 
after the last on page 20, 13 Akbal. ‘The arrangement of the year-bearers is again 
such that all the Lamat years fall in the first column, all the Ben years in the second 
column, all the Eznab years in the third column, and all the Akbal years in the last 
column, the ceremonies appropriate to each being depicted in wider columns im- 
mediately following the corresponding column of year-bearers in each case; and the 
conclusion is again unescapable that, like the Dresden Manuscript, the years in the 
Codex Peresianus also began with the Eznab, Akbal, Lamat, and Ben group. 

When we come to the remaining Maya codex, the Tro-Cortesianus, however, 
we find another shift in the year-bearers had taken place before it was composed. 
On pages 34 to 37 of this manuscript there is a series of 52 year-bearers beginning 
with 10 Cauac and ending with 9 Ix. These follow exactly the same arrangement 
as in the Codex Peresianus, the order of reading being from left to right across all 
four pages as one, and from top to bottom, all the Cauac years falling on the first 
page, all the Kan years on the second, all the Muluc years on the third,” and all the 
Ix years on the last. Again the ceremonies appropriate to each year appear to the 
right of the corresponding column of year-bearers, one group to each page. 

The most fundamental difference between these pages of the Codex Tro- 
Cortesianus and the corresponding pages of the Dresdensis and Peresianus is that 
in the former the year-bearers are Cauac, Kan, Muluc, and Ix, whereas in the two 
latter, we have seen, they are Eznab, Akbal, Lamat, and Ben; that is, they have 
again been shifted one day forward, making two shifts since the time of the Old 
Empire. 





1The upper line of year-bearers running across both pages is effaced. It may be restored, however, as having 
been composed of 1 Lamat, 2 Ben, 3 Eznab, and 4 Akbal. ; 

2The Muluc years are somewhat confused, reading 12, 3, 6, 10, I, 5, 9, 13, 4, 8, 2, 7, and 3 instead of 12, 3, 7, II, 
2, 6, 10, I, 5, 9, 13, 4, and 8. As Thomas has pointed out (1882, p. 19), this was probably due only to an error 
of the scribe rather than to any intentional departure from the regular order. 


518 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


This last group, moreover, is the one which was in use at the time of the Spanish 
Conquest, a fact unanimously agreed upon by all the authorities, Spanish as well as 
native.’ 

The Maya year-bearers therefore appear to have passed through three of the 
five possible groups of day-signs during the course of recorded Maya history: 

(1) The Old Empire year-bearers were Caban, Ik, Manik, and Eb. 
(2) The New Empire year-bearers (period of the Codices Dresdensis and Pere- 
sianus) were Eznab, Akbal, Lamat, and Ben. 


(3) The New Empire year-bearers (period of the Codex Tro-Cortesianus) were 
Cauac, Kan, Muluc, and Ix. 


Before we can correlate this evidence with that presented by the shift in the 
positions of the days 1 in the months, and suggest a possible explanation for these 
several changes in the Maya chronological system, it is first necessary to touch 
briefly upon a third line of evidence. 

No matter how seriously the archeological and historical (uw kahlay katunob) 
evidence contradicts the correlation of the Long Count and Christian chronology 
indicated on page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, the fact remains that such a 
correlation was actually in use at the time of the conquest. Indeed, our only escape 
from this dilemma appears to be to recognize that some sort of a break took place in 
the sequence of the ending-days of the katuns some time between the end of the Old 
Empire and the Spanish Conquest. Practically stated, the archeological and his- 
torical evidence tends to show that Katun 13 Ahau 8 Kankin ended in 1536, whereas 
page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab indicates that Katun 13 Ahau 8 Xul ended 
in 1539. 

While these two dates are only 1,300 days apart in the Calendar Round, as 
katun-endings they are 13 katuns apart or 256.27 years, which, added to the differ- 
ence of 3 years in the Christian calendar, makes a total difference of 259 years be- 
tween these two correlations, as already stated. 

We have here, then, a double dis- 
agreement, not only as to the partic- Fi. 76.—Inscription on front of column in Temple of the 
Clara 13 Ahau, one correlation High Priest’s Grave at Chichen Itza. 
giving it as 13 Ahau 8 Kankin, and 
the other as 13 Ahau 8 Xul, 13 katuns (ene 
later, but also a difference of 3 Chris- abi 
tian years in the time when this Katun 
13 Ahau ended, one placing it at the end of 1536 or early in 1537 and 
the other toward the close of 1539. 

The foregoing concludes the presentation of the several changes 
through which the Maya chronological system passed, and there re- 
mains to suggest what appears to be the best explanation of the causes 
giving rise to these phenomena. 

It is evident at the outset that in so far as the monuments are 
concerned, the Old Empire positions of the days in the months re- IZ 
mained intact almost to the end of the New Empire, the latest certain 
date, the Temple of the High Priest’s Grave at Chichen Itza, 

I1.19.11.0.0 (1350), conforming to the Old Empire system. (See Ce 
figure 76.) In fact, as already noted, the only two inscriptions in s}U0a 
which reflect this change at all are those on the east ring of the Ball Court and on 






*All of the Books of Chilan Balam, Nakuk Pech, the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, Landa (1881, pp. 87-90), 
Cogolludo (1688, p. 186), and Pérez (Stephens, 1843, vol. 1, pp. 434-459), in fact, all the post-Columbian author- 
ities, agree that the only year-bearers in use in Yucatan at the time of the conquest were Kan, Muluc, Ix, and 
Cauac, no others even being mentioned. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 519 


a capstone in the East Range of the Monjas Quadrangle, both at Uxmal, and 
both somewhat earlier, I1.15.16.12.14 (1277) and 11.12.17.11.1 (1219) respectively. 

Unfortunately, we are in doubt as to the dates of the Codices Dresdensis and 
Peresianus, sO We can not determine when the year-bearers first changed from the 
Old Empire group to the middle group. Both of these codices, judged by their 
stylistic characteristics, were probably found in Yucatan, it should be remembered, 
and particularly the former may have been a later New Empire copy of an Old 
Empire original.' Forstemann believes the contemporaneous date of the Dresden 
manuscript was 9.7.16.12.0 1 Ahau 18 Zip,? and Bowditch has suggested that it was 
9.9.9.16.0 1 Ahau 18 Kayab.? The writer feels that these dates are much too 
early; and finally, there is an entry in the u kahlay katunob which may indicate 
that this change in the year-bearers took place in Yucatan in 9.17.0.0.0, and con- 
sequently that the Dresden Codex is later than this date. 

In both the Tizimin and first Chumayel chronicles occurs the following entry 
opposite the first Katun 13 Ahau after Chichen Itza is said to have been occupied: 
“Pop was then counted in order.” Under the correlation suggested here this was 
9.17.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Cumhu; and under that indicated by the Oxkutzcab chronicle 
it was 9.4.0.0.0 13 Ahau 18 Yax, the latter being much too early for the date of this 
change. 9.17.0.0.0, on the other hand, agrees very closely with the date of the 
foundation of Chichen Itza, and it is quite possible that the move thither caused 
some slight derangement in the calendar, so that subsequently the year-bearers were 
named Eznab, Akbal, Lamat, and Ben, and that this change is indicated in the u 
kahlay katunob by the statement that “‘Pop was then counted in order.” 

That this change of the year-bearers did not affect the positions of the days 
in the months, however, we have already seen; nor did the next change from the 
middle group of year-bearers to the last group affect any change in the month- 
positions either, judging from the single Calendar Round date, 13 Ahau 13 Cumhu, 
on page 73, b of the Codex Tro-Cortesianus. Fortunately, we are able to date this 
manuscript on stylistic grounds more closely. It is clearly very crude as compared 
with the Peresianus and Dresdensis and obviously later. 

In 1916, during the course of a visit to the ruins of Tuluum on the east coast of 
the peninsula, Gann made tracings of some mural decorations there, figures of dei- 
ties, etc. He pronounces these so like the figures in the Codex Tro-Cortesianus 
that he concludes this manuscript, if not made at Tuluum itself, comes from that 
immediate neighborhood. 

The style of architecture at Tuluum is also crude and late; and finally it seems 
to have been the only site on the east coast of Yucatan of sufficient size to answer 
to the glowing description of the large occupied city with a high tower made 
by Padre Juan Diaz, the chaplain and chronicler of the Grijalva expedition in 1518.4 

1Morley, 1915, p. 273. 2Férstemann, 1904, p. 437. 3Bowditch, 1909, p. 279. 

4“That day we left the island, called the Holy Cross [Cozumel], and went to that of Yucatan, which is at a dis- 
tance of 15 miles. When we were near the coast we saw three large villages at a distance of about 2 miles apart. 
They contained a great number of stone houses, some very high towers, and many dwellings covered with straw. 
We would have entered the village if the commander had permitted it, but he opposed it. We ran along the coast 
day and night, and the next day toward sunset we perceived a town or village so large that Seville would not have 
appeared more considerable or better: one saw a very large tower, there was a crowd of Indians on the shore, who 
carried two standards, which they raised and lowered to make a sign to us to come to them; the commander did 
not wish it. The same day we arrived at a beach near which was a tower, the highest we had seen; one saw here 
quite a large town or village; the country was watered by many rivers; we discovered a bay where a whole fleet 
could have entered [Ascencién Bay]. It was surrounded by wooden dwellings made by the fishermen; the com- 
mander was going to disembark there. It was utterly impossible for us to follow the coast, and to advance 
farther; we raised sail and returned whither we had entered.” (Ternaux-Compans, 1838, pp. 10-12). For other 
descriptions of Tuluum, see Stephens, 1843, vol. 11, pp. 385-409; Howe, 1911, pp. 539-550; Morley, 1916, pp. 338, 
339; 1bid., 1917, pp. 190-204; ibid, 19184, pp. 274, 275. 


520 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The other ruins along the east coast of Yucatan which the writer has visited, 
Espiritu Santo Bay, Chac Mool, Playa Carmen, Cancuen, El Mecco, and Isla de 
Mugeres, are all of similar type, small, practically devoid of sculptured decoration, 
and of cruder workmanship than the cities of the interior. Indeed, it appears prob- 
able that they are of comparatively recent origin, certainly after the fall of Chichen 
Itza in Katun 8 Ahau (1182-1201), and possibly after the fall of Mayapan in Katun 
8 Ahau (1438-1458). And since the Codex Tro-Cortesianus surely emanates from 
this general region, it too must date from after 1182-1201. Finally, if we may 
trust the evidence supplied by the single Calendar Round date in this manuscript, 
13 Ahau 13 Cumhu, even this second shift of the year-bearers did not affect the 
positions of the days in the months, at least in the eastern cities. 

That the Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac year-bearers were introduced after the 
fall of Chichen Itza some time in Katun 8 Ahau, 1182-1201, is indicated by a painted 
lintel at Chichen Itza, which is shown in figure 77.1. This was excavated by Thomp- 
son from a small chamber in a group of buildings some distance east of the casa 
principal on the south side of the road leading to the Grotto. ‘The upper band of 
the inscription is composed of 7 glyphs, of which only the third and fourth concern 
us here. The former is very clearly 6 Kan, the latter equally clearly Tun 9. 


IND || 





Fic. 77.—Part of inscription on capstone from a small chamber in a structure east of the 
casa principal at Chichen Itza. 


The meaning here seems to be that a haab or 365-day year, whose year-bearer 
was the day 6 Kan, fell in some Tun 9. If we admit the truth of this assumption, 
we may fill in the missing month part of the beginning: day of this year as 2 Pop 
on the ground that in the east, 7.¢., at Chichen Itza, Tuluum, etc., we have no ground 
for believing that the position of the days in the months ever changed from the Old 
Empire system. 

This Calendar Round date did not occur at all in any Tun 9 of either Cycle 9 
or Cycle 12 and in only one Tun g of Cycles 10 and 11 each, as follows: 


10. 3.8.14.4 6 Kan 2 Pop. 
11.12.8.13.4°6 Kan 2 Pop. 


Of these, only the latter is hi-torically possible here, since the Kan, Muluc, Ix, 
and Cauac group of year-bearers had not come into use as early as 10.3.8.14.4. 
Indeed, so far as the writer is aware, this is the earliest example of the use of this 
group of year-bearers known (1210 A. D.). 

This lintel also tends to disprove the correlation indicated by the Oxkutzcab 
chronicle, since if 11.16.0.0.0 1s 1539, then 11.12.8.13.4 will be 1469, some 20 to 30 
years after Chichen Itza had been abandoned and the Itza had left Yucatan; or 
using the earlier value, if 10.3.8.14.4 be accepted for 6 Kan 2 Pop, under the Oxkutz- 
cab correlation it will give 897 A. D. for this lintel, far too early for a Kan year-bearer 
to have been used. 

Correlating all the foregoing evidence as to the year-bearers, it appears probable 
that shortly after Chichen Itza was founded, in 9.17.0.0.0—if the setting of Pop in 


1The inscription on this lintel was drawn by Mr. John Held, jr., in 1918. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 521 


order may be taken as a reference to this change—the year-bearers were shifted in 
Yucatan from Caban, Ik, Manik, and Eb, one day forward to Eznab, Akbal, La- 
mat, and Ben respectively, without, however, the positions of the days in the months 
suffering any corresponding change (Codices Dresdensis and Peresianus). 

More than six centuries later, and as the writer believes he will be able to show, 
as a result of the fall of Chichen Itza and the introduction of Nahua chronological 
practices in Yucatan after 1182-1201, the year-bearers were again shifted one day 
forward to Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac, but not later than 1210, the latter date being 
fixed by the Chichen Itza lintel just described. Again, this shift was accomplished 
without any corresponding change in the positions of the days in the months in the 
eastern cities (High Priest’s Grave at Chichen Itza and the Codex Tro-Cortesianus 
from Tuluum), but by a change of one day in the western cities as early as 1219 
(lintel from the East Range of the Monjas Quadrangle at Uxmal), also corroborated 
by the Uxmal Ball Court as having taken place as early as 1277. 

This shift of 1 in the month-positions, and the second shift of 1 in the year- 
bearers, the writer believes, was caused by the introduction of the Nahua influence 
into Yucatan after 1182-1201, and more particularly by the attempt to accom- 
modate a chronology kept in terms of elapsed units like the katun and tun to a 
chronology kept in terms of current time-periods like the 365-day Nahua years. 

Here was a fundamental difference in the whole conception of time, and in their 
attempts to readjust themselves to it the Maya shifted both their year-bearers and 
the positions of their days in the months, the former forward, the latter backward. 

It has long been known that the Nahua year-bearers, Tochtli, Acatl, Tecpatl, 
and Calli, corresponded to the Maya year-bearers Lamat, Ben, Eznab, and Akbal 
respectively, 7. ¢., those of the middle group, which, according to the writer’s hypo- 
thesis, were already in use in Yucatan when the Nahua influence first made itself 
felt there. 

The question may well be asked, why then, if the two groups of year-bearers 
were the same, should any change have been made in the Lamat, Ben, Eznab, and 
Akbal group at all? 

With some hesitation the writer offers the following tentative explanation 
of what may have happened. At the close of the twelfth century the Maya appear 
to have been confronted with the following situation: a strong alien people, the 
Nahua, in alliance with one of the native Maya princes, the halach vinic of Mayapan, 
had just achieved a notable victory over the Itza, the oldest branch of the Maya in 
Yucatan. As a result of this victory, in which seven Nahua leaders aided the 
halach vinic of Mayapan,! the Itza capital, Chichen Itza, appears to have been 
given over to the latter’s foreign allies as their share in the spoils of war; certain it 
is that Chichen Itza, more than every other Maya city, shows Nahua influence in 
its sculpture, art, and architecture. 

When the Nahua came to Yucatan in the twelfth century the Maya were 
already naming their year-bearers after the second days of their years, 1. ¢., Lamat, 
Ben, Eznab, and Akbal, although the corresponding month-coefficients of these 
days were still 1. “The Nahua, on the other hand, while naming their year-bearers 
after these same four days, or rather their Nahuan equivalents, really called them 
the first days of their years, a difference of 1 in their positions in the year as com- 
pared with the current Maya usage. 

The Maya, either voluntarily or under compulsion, it matters little which, 
may have sought to overcome this difference in position by making their days 
Lamat, Ben, Eznab, and Akbal conform to the Nahua positions for their corre- 


1Brinton, (1882, p. 102) gives their names as Ah Zinteyut Chan, Tzuntecum, Taxcal, Pantemit, Xuchueuet, 
Ytzcuat, and Kakaltecat. See also ibid., p. 147. 


522 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


sponding days, Tochtli, Acatl, Tecpatl, and Calli; but true to their Maya traditions 
and to their conception of time as a thing of elapsed units, they gave these first days 
of the year the month-coefficient 0, as they had always done from time immemorial. ‘This 
would explain the difference of one day in the positions of the days in the months 
between the Old Empire and the late New Empire, 1. ¢., the Toltec Period (see page 
505), but it does not explain why the second shift in the year-bearers took place, 
since the Lamat, Ben, Eznab, and Akbal group already agreed with the year-bearers 
of the conquerors. 

This second change may have come about shortly after the month-positions 
were changed, and may have been due to the inability of the Maya to maintain 
intact their conception of time as a succession of elapsed units, in the face of a strong 
element in their midst which looked upon time as a matter of current units. And 
once the month-positions had been changed to make the year-bearers, 1 Akbal o 
Pop; 1 Ben o Pop, 1 Eznab o Pop, and 1 Lamat o Pop, really occupy the first and not 
the second positions in the year, as under the Old Empire system, the Maya may not 
have been able to hold out against calling the first position of their years 1 Pop, as 

did the Nahua, instead of o Pop, as they had always done before. 

. At this point, then, they may have given up calling the first position of the 
year O Pop, using 1 Pop instead, after the Nahua usage, but rather than shift Akbal 
back to 1 again, where it had been under the Old Empire, they chose the Kan, Muluc, Ix, 
and Cauac group, since under the shift of 1 forward in the month positions already 
made these now had a month coefficient of r instead of 2 as in the Old Empire, thus 
doing away with 1 Akbal o Pop as a year-bearer and substituting in its stead 1 Kan 
1 Pop, the condition actually prevalent at the time of the Spanish Conquest. 

The writer is well aware that this explanation is open to justifiable adverse 
criticism. Not only is it based upon insufficient evidence, but it also presupposes 
a change in the Maya year-bearers at a time when they were already the same as 
the corresponding Nahua year-bearers. On the other hand, it best explains the 
archeological data actually observed, and at the same time it ascribes these final 
changes to what the writer believes is at the root of this whole question, namely, 
the inevitable confusion which arose when a system of current time-units was grafted 
onto a system of elapsed time-units. This was a fundamental change indeed, and 
before the Maya had become adjusted to it, the positions of their days had shifted 
1 backward, they had lost their conception of the zero position as being that of the 
first day of the year, the year-bearers themselves had undergone a second shift 
forward; and finally, the Xiu at least, appear to have dropped 205 positions in the 
year. ‘This last took place some time after 11.15.16.12.14, when the sequence of the 
katuns as they had come down from the Old Empire was still intact at Uxmal as 
established by the date on the capstone in the East Range of the Monjas Quadrangle, 
but before that “ancient book”’ from which Don Juan Xiu copied page 66 of the 
Oxkutzcab Chronicle in 1685 was written. 

All these changes must have brought about a corresponding feeling of un- 
certainty as to just what the positions of the days in the months really should be. 
For example, on page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab just cited, in a series of 13 
consecutive tuns, Don Juan Xiu refers Ahau to the 3, 8, 13, and 18 group of month- 
positions once (Old Empire system), to the 2, 7, 12, and 17 group five times (New 
Empire system), and to the I, 6, 11, and 16 group seven times, the last conforming 
to no system known anywhere else. On the other hand, when he gives the ending- 
days of these same 13 tuns, he makes not one error in the corresponding day-signs 
or their coefficients. 

This, in the writer’s opinion, indicates that the day sequence, the 260 days of 
the tonalamatl, had remained inviolate and unbroken from time immemorial. The 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 523 


katuns and tuns always had ended on days Ahau; these ending-days followed each 
other in a generally known and unchanging sequence, and errors were very rarely 
made in regard tothem. The same was not true of the month-coefficients, however. 
The shift of 1 in the month-positions, the several shifts which the year-bearers had 
undergone, and most important of all, the fundamental change in their conception 
of time, from elapsed to elapsing time-periods, had brought about among the Maya 
a feeling of uncertainty by the time of the Spanish conquest which is clearly re- 
flected in Don Juan Xiu’s use of three different systems of month-positions in a 
series of 13 consecutive tuns. 

This loss of 205 positions in the haab in the Xiu records had the following 
practical effect: For example, let us assume that at the end of the Katun 8 Ahau 
in which Mayapan was finally destroyed and all the large cities abandoned, 205 
positions in the year were dropped from the u kahlay katunob when the Xiu moved 
to Mani. Under the correlation suggested here this was Katun 8 Ahau 3 Pax 
(12.5.0.0.0), but after these 205 positions were dropped it became Katun 8 Ahau 3 
Mol (11.12.0.0.0) and the four remaining katuns down to the katun of Napot Xiu’s 
death changed correspondingly as follows: 


The writer’s Katun 6 Ahau 3 Zac (12.6.0.0.0) became Katun 6 Ahau 3 Zip (11.13.0.0.0). 

The writer’s Katun 4 Ahau 3 Xul (12.7.0.0.0) became Katun 4 Ahau 8 Pax (11.14.0.0.0). 

The writer’s Katun 2 Ahau 3 Pop (12.8.0.0.0) became Katun 2 Ahau 8 Zac (11.15.0.0.0). 

The cage ya .: Ahau 8 Kankin (12.9.0.0.0) became Katun 13 Ahau 8 Xul 
II.16.0.0.0). 


Furthermore, this final Katun 13 Ahau, instead of ending in 1536, as the cor- 
relation suggested here indicates, according to page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutz- 
cab would appear to have ended in 1539; at least, a Tun 13 Ahau 8 Xul is said to 
have ended in that Christian year. 

This dropping of 205 positions in the year from the Xiu records may have been 
caused by some attempt to bring the Maya months into agreement with the Nahua 
months. Whatever may have been the reason why these positions were dropped, 
their elimination probably did not affect the sequence of the days Ahau on which 
the katuns ended, as above noted; indeed, these doubtless continued right down to 
the very end without a break. 

The most fundamental principle of Maya chronology, and indeed, of all the 
calendar systems of Central America and Mexico, which later grew out of it, the 
Aztec, Zapotec, Cakchiquel, Quiché, etc., was the absolute inviolability of the 260- 
day count, from which not a single day could be dropped without throwing the 
whole system into confusion. Thus, assuming these 205 year-positions were 
dropped at the end of the writer’s Katun 8 Ahau 3 Pax, this became 8 Ahau 3 Mol 
instead, and the following day instead of being 9 Imix 4 Pax, became 9 Imix 4 Mol. 
In other words, although the sequence of day-positions in the haab was broken, so 
long as the day sequence itself remained uninterrupted, the sequence of the katuns 
in the u kahlay katunob (which were named after their closing days) was not dis- 
turbed. 

It is very doubtful whether any similar omission of month positions ever took 
place among the Itza, and in any event not before Chichen Itza was abandoned in 
Katun 8 Ahau (1438-1458). The latest date known in the Corpus Inscriptionum 
Mayarum, that on the temple of the High Priest’s Grave at Chichen Itza, 11.19.11.0.0 
(1350 A.D.), in a Katun 5 Ahau conforms in every way with the Old Empire chro- 
nology, and tends strongly to indicate that so far as Chichen Itza is concerned no 
break in the continuity of the day positions ever occurred there. 


524 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Goodman appears to have reached a similar conclusion when he states that 
“the 11 Ahau katun of the Itzas, Cocoms, and Chels began December 25, 1536,’ 
although he gives no authority for this statement. 

Indeed, a survey of all the foregoing evidence indicates that toward the very 
end of the New Empire two different systems of naming the katuns may have been 
in use at the same time, both agreeing as to the day of the terminal date, but dis- 
agreeing as to its position in the year. 

The Itza in the east retained the Old Empire system intact, whereas the Xiu in 
the west who were nearer the region from which these Nahua waves were flowing 
into Yucatan lost contact with the Old Empire count and substituted another, 
retaining the same ending-days for their katuns as the Itza, but assigning to them 
different positions in the year. ‘This explains why practically all of the sources 
agree as to the names of the katuns, that is, 13 Ahau, 11 Ahau, 9 Ahau, etc., in which 
the different events in the sixteenth century occurred, but disagree when they 
attempt to fix any day to its corresponding position in the haab. 

Although the point escapes actual proof at this time, the writer believes that 
_ the most serious of all the discrepancies, the difference of 205 positions in the Maya 
year and of 3 Christian years, causing a corresponding apparent difference of 259 
years between his correlation and that indicated on page 66 of the Chronicle of 
Oxkutzcab, 7.e., between the Xiu and Itza records, did not arise until after the fall 
of Mayapan in Katun 8 Ahau (1438-1458) and the subsequent removal of the Xiu 
from Uxmal to Mani. It was during these troubled times that this hiatus probably 
arose, and that the old continuity of the sequence, at least in the Xiu records, was 
broken for the first time. 

That the Katun 13 Ahau, which ended in 1536 or 1539, was thought to be Katun 
13 Ahau 8 Xul instead of Katun 13 Ahau 8 Kankin at the time of the Spanish con- 
quest, the writer is ready to admit on the evidence supplied by page 66 from the Chro- 
nicle of Oxkutzcab alone, but that this difference extended back more than 5 katuns 
appears highly improbable, and more than 14 katuns impossible (11.15.16.12.14). 
Thus, as an instrument for correlating Christian chronology with the Long Count 
of the Old Empire, this source must be regarded as unserviceable, and the correla- 
tion to which it gives rise must be rejected. 


OTHER SYSTEMS OF CORRELATION. 


Before closing this Appendix it appears advisable to review, as briefly as may 
be, the correlations of Maya and Christian chronology proposed by other writers, 
which differ greatly not only from one and another, but in a few cases, notably 
those of the German school, from that suggested in the foregoing pages. 

These several authorities may be divided into four schools or groups, not only on 
national lines but also in methods of approach, results obtained, and chronological 
sequence, as follows: 

(1) The Guatemalan school: Fuentes y Guzman (1689), Juarros (1808), and 
Galindo (1834). 

(2) The French cat Pérez (1842), Brasseur de Bourbourg (1858), Valentini 
(1879), and de Rosny (1883). 

(3) The German school: Sapper (1897), Forstemann (1902), Seler (1902), and 
Lehmann (1910). 

(4) The American school: Bowditch (1901), Goodman (1905), Morley (1910), 
Joyce (1914), and Spinden (1913 and 1919). 


1Goodman, 1905, p. 645. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 525 


1. THE GUATEMALAN SCHOOL. 


The efforts of this school may be dismissed with brief comment. The cor- 
relations suggested are only approximate, in the cases of Fuentes y Guzman and 
his copyist, Juarros, being nothing more than the bare statement that Copan was 
occupied and in a flourishing condition down to its conquest by Hernando de Chaves 
in 1530. (See Appendix V.) This belief, of course, rests on the assumption that 
the town of Copan conquered in that year by Hernando de Chaves was the same 
place as the great group of ruins now known by that name, but even Garcia de 
Palacio, writing as early as 1576, suspected that this was not the case,! as also 
Stephens? in 1839. Finally, in 1885, Maudslay completely demonstrated the 
untenability of this position,’ and a decade later Gordon reached the same con- 
clusion.* 

Galindo believed Copan was colonized by “the Tultecos” from Mexico about 
the close of the sixth century after Christ,® and continued to be occupied down to 
the Spanish Conquest at the height of its perfection,® and even afterward.’ 

These early attempts at correlating Old Empire and Christian chronology were 
based upon the erroneous assumption above noted; they have no scientific value 
and are only of interest because they were the first ventures in this particular field. 


2. THe FRENCH SCHOOL. 


The first serious attempt to correlate New Empire and Christian Chronology, 
based upon reliable data and scientific in method, was that of the Yucatan anti- 
quary Don Pio Pérez, who published his correlation under the title of “Ancient 
chronology of Yucatan; or a true exposition of the method used by the Indians for 
computing time,” as an appendix to Volume I of Stephens’s Incidents of Travel 
in Yucatan:® 

“The fundamental point of departure from which to adjust the Ahaus [7.¢., katuns] 
with the years of the Christian Era, to count the periods or cycles, which have elapsed, and 
to make the years quoted by the Indians in their histories agree with the same era, is the 
year of our Lord, 1392, which according to all sources of information confirmed by the 
testimony of Don Cosme de Burgos, one of the conquerors, and a writer (but whose observa- 
tions have been lost) was the year in which fell the 7 Cauac giving in its second day the 
commencement of 8 Ahau, and from this as from a root, all that preceded and have followed 
it are adjusted according to the table of them which has been given, and as this agrees with 
all the series that have been found, it is highly probable that it is the correct one.’”® 


Unfortunately, Pérez believed the katun was composed of 24 years of 365 days 
each in place of 20 tuns of 360 days each, which brings him to the year 144 A.D. as 
the beginnin'g of the « kahlay katunob given on page 499, which, according to the 
correlation suggested here, occurred in 176 A. D., with the Initial Series 9.0.0.0.0. 

Brasseur de Bourbourg’s correlation is also based on the chronicle from the 
Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, and curiously enough is within 2 years of the date 
suggested by the writer for the opening entry in the u kahlay katunob on page 499: 

“Maya chronology fixes the year 174 of the Christian Era for the departure of the four 
Tutul Xius: ‘leaving the house of Nonohual, and the Land of Tulapan which is to the west 
of Zuyua, having at their head Holon-Chan-Tepeuh.’ This epoch was also that of their 
arrival in Chacnouitan. But after that, this chronology remains silent until the year 258, 
which it gives as the epoch of a new migration of the Tutul Xius and of their establishment 
in the province of Zyan-Caan to the southeast of the Yucatecan peninsula.’’” 





1See Appendix IV, p. 541. *Stephens, 1841, vol. I, pp. 99, IOI, 160. 3Maudslay, 1886, p. sgt. 
4Gordon, 1896, p. 3. 5Galindo, 18354, p. 546; see also page 19 and Appendix XI, page 595. 
6Ibid., 18354, p. 545; see also note 3 on page 19 and Appendix XI, page 601. 

1Ibid., 1835a, p. 549; sce also note 3 on page 19 and Appendix XI, page 603. 

8See Stephens, 1843, vol. 1, pp. 434-459. *Tbid., p. 442. 

WBrasseur de Bourbourg, 1857-1859, vol. I, p. 3. 


526 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The most scholarly correlation of this second group of writers was that pro- 
posed by P. J. J. Valentini in his Katwnes of Maya history, also based upon the same 
chronicle as the two preceding: 

“According to this statement the 13th Ahau [7. ¢., Katun 13 Ahau] ended with the year 
1542. Bishop Landa (see section 41 of his Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan) confirms the 
correctness of the above calculation, though he says that the 13th Ahau expired with the 
year 1541. Landa undoubtedly selects this date of June 10, 1541, as that of the last decisive 
victory at T’ho over the Indians, while the author of the manuscript may have had in mind 
the date when Merida was officially incorporated as the capital and a dependency of the 
Spanish crown, which was January 6, 1542. If we subtract the total number of Ahaues 
[7. ¢., katuns] already obtained, and amounting to 1,400 years from the year 1542, we obtain 
for the first epoch named in the manuscript, which is the 8th Ahau [Katun 8 Ahau] or the 
starting of the conquerors from Tulapan, the years 142-162 of our modern Christian Era.””! 


Valentini’s correlation differs from that proposed by the writer by 14 years, 
due to the two following factors: First, Valentini counts a katun as composed of 20 
full years, whereas it is only composed of 19.713 years, which, in the 69 katuns 
between the Katun 13 Ahauin which Napot Xiu died, and the Katun 8 Ahau with 
.which the u kahlay katunob begins, makes a difference of 19.80 years; and second, 
he regards the Katun 13 Ahau of Napot Xiu’s death as having ended in 1542.016 
instead of 1536.982, as the writer believes, 7. ¢., a difference of about 5 years; and 
these two factors, one working forward and ee other backward, make a difference 

of 14 years between the two correlations. 

The correlation suggested by de Rosny is worthless.2, He makes a triple error 
which leads him 25 years astray for the date of the opening entry in the u kahlay 
katunob. In the first place, he follows Pérez in regarding the katuns as 8,760 days 
in length (1. €., 24 years of 365 days each); in the second place, he regards the dates 
given in the u kahlay katunob as the beginning-days of the katuns, instead of their 
ending-days; and in the third place, he assumes Katun 13 Ahau began in 1531 and 
endedin1s55. Under this correlation a date of 151 a.D. is reached for the beginning 
of the u kahlay katunob. 

None of the writers of this group made any attempt to correlate the New 
Empire chronology with that of the Old Empire, and in fact the only one of the five 
u kahlay katunob with which they were familiar was that from the Book of Chilan 
Balam of Mani. They were, however, the first to make a serious attempt at cor- 
relating New Empire and Christian chronology, and their results have been fol- 
lowed by the later Yucatecan historians, Ancona,’ Carrillo y Ancona,‘ and Molina 
Solis.® 

3. THE GERMAN SCHOOL. 


The German School of correlation would bring the period of the Old Empire 
down to a much later date, even as late as the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries of 
the Christian Era. Sapper was the first German to come forward with a correlation, 
based upon the u kahlay katunob, like those of the preceding school: 

“And it seems to follow from the manuscript (Lelo lai utzolan katunil ti Mayab) supplied 
and translated by Brasseur de Bourbourg in his Diego de Landa, that even in historic time 
(end of the 5th century a.D.) a section of the Mayas from the south settled in southeast 
Yucatan, and gradually pushed northward until they captured Chichenitza (8th century) 
and Champutun (gth century) and thereby caused a migration in a southerly direction of the 
people (Itzaes) living there.’’® 


In this rather vague passage Sapper appears to place the original departure 
from Tulapan at the end of the fifth century; the “capture” of Chichen Itza in the 





1Valentini, 1879, p. 109. 2Rosny, 1883, pp. 33-36. 3See Ancona, 1878-1905. 
4See Carrillo y Ancona, 1871. 5See Molina Solis, 1896. ®Sapper, 1897, p. 400. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 527 
eighth century, and the “‘capture”’ of Champutun (Chakanputan) in the ninth cen- 
tury, whereas the dates for these events in the correlation suggested here are176a.D., 
531 A. D., and 709 A. D., respectively, each about three centuries earlier. 

His slseuie statement that this movement northward into Yucatan caused the 
people then living there, the Itza, to move south is utterly without foundation. On 
the contrary, it was the Itza themselves who first movedinto Yucatan at this time 
and in all probability found the country absolutely devoid of earlier inhabitants. 
Sapper seems to have made no attempt to correlate the Old Empire chronology with 
the Christian Era, and even for the u kahlay katunob his results are highly unsatisfac- 
tory, although they are the best of all the German correlations, placing the dates 
of these events several centuries earlier than any of the other German authorities. 

Forstemann represents the other extreme, his final correlation making the 
majority of the Old Empire cities so recent as to have been occupied down almost 
to the discovery of America, and some sites even as late as 1577. His earlier cor- 
relation was even more improbable For example, he says the important date 
9.9.16.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu on page 24 of the Dresden Codex may refer to the de- 
struction of Mayapan, which he places in 1436.” If this correlation were correct, 
it would place the date of Stela 2 at Quen Santo, which is 10.2.10.0.0, 250 years 
later, or in 1686, actually more than a century after the Spaniards had conquered 
and occupied the region where this monument was found (see plate 1); and it would 
make the Great Period of the Old Empire begin in 1538, that is, actually 14 years 
after the conquest of Guatemala by Pedro de Alvarado in 1524, and finally, it would 
make the whole period coincident with the first century of the Spanish occupation. 
This result was so fanciful that Fo6rstemann later placed his correlation 104 years 
earlier. He says in this connection: 

“First the tenth cycle [1. ¢., 9.0.0.0.0 to 10.0.0.0.0] should not be placed too early, for 
the civilization of the Mayas in historic time is exactly the same as that displayed on the 
monuments. Second, it should not be placed too late, for it is creditably reported that 
upon their arrival the Spaniards found the principal places containing monuments, such as 
Palenque, Copan, and Quirigua, in ruins.’’ 

He then proceeds to correlate a number of the monuments of Copan and 
Quirigua with what he believes were their corresponding equivalents in Christian 
chronology. Thus for Stela N at Copan, 9.16.10.0.0, he proposes the year 1459 A. D. 
And on this basis his date for 9.0.0.0.0 would be 325 years earlier or 1134 A. D. 
These even still entirely too recent dates for the Old Empire cities force him to 
reject the Chichen Itza lintel, the Initial Series of which is 10.2.9.1.9, as question- 
able, and possibly inaccurately deciphered, since even in his amended correlation 
10.2.9.1.9 fell in the year 1576 and 10.2.10.0.0 (Stela 2 at Quen Santo) in 1577. 

In a still later passage he apparently contradicts his previous correlation: 

“Tf it is correct we have the day VIII 4 [7.¢.,8 Manik]; 10 4 [7. ¢., 10 Zotz] (in the year) 
5 Cauac, which in my opinion falls in the year 1496, the beginning year of [Katun] 2 Ahau, 


and to which the day number [2. ¢., the Initial Series number] 1,426,507 [7. ¢., 9.18.2.9.7] 
would belong; see my treatise “The Tenth Cycle of the Mayas,’ in Globus, vol. 82, No. 9.’’4 


But this is surely an error, for if he correlates 9.16.10.0.0 with 1459 as above, 
then 9.18.2.9.7 8 Manik 10 Zotz will fall in 1491, or at best 1492, whereas he gives 
it in this last passage as falling in 1496. This can not be true, since the difference 
between 9.16.10.0.0 and 9.18.2.9.7 is only 32.05 years, not 37 years, and 1459+32.05 
= 1491.05. 

Even his amended correlation is historically impossible. For example, 
makes the Spanish Conquest of Guatemala in 1524 actually precede the closing 








1See Mercer, 1896, p. 167. 2FOrstemann, I9O], p. 51. 3[bid., 1902, p. 141. 4Tbid., 19044, p. 361. 


528 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


dates of many of the Old Empire cities, Stele 1, 8, 9, 10, and 11 at Seibal, Stela 11 
at Tikal, Stela 1 and 2 at Flores, Stela 1 at Ucanal, Stela 1 at Benque Viejo, and 
Stela D at Nakum, and it may be rejected outright on historical grounds. 

Nor is Seler’s correlation much better, being open to the same objection in only 
aslightly lesser degree. After side-stepping the question several times, even going 
so far as to assert that “‘it is therefore no longer possible to establish a connection 
between our chronology and the dates on the monuments,””! he proceeds to fall in 
line with the rest of the German school and to make a correlation which is almost 
as improbable as the one proposed by Férstemann: 


“At the end of my second treatise published in the 32nd volume of the Zeitschrift fiir 
Ethnologie, p. 188 et seq. [see also Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 835, 836], I referred to the fact 
that the region where I obtained the Sacchana [Quen Santo] fragments of stela was aban- 
doned about the middle of the sixteenth century, so that these fragments were hidden at 
that time in the cave where they were subsequently found. But undoubtedly these frag- 
ments, like all these monuments and the stele of Copan and Quirigua, formerly stood ex- 
posed. Now since the material is a chalky limestone of slight endurance, incapable of 
resisting the elements for a long time, it can be assumed as in a measure probable that these 

_most recent of the known dated monuments were erected about the middle of the fifteenth 
century. This would place the golden age of Quirigua [1. ¢., 9.15.15.0.0 to 9.19.0.0.0] between 
the end of the thirteenth and the end of the fourteenth centuries, the nephrite slab from the 
Rio Graciosa (?) [7. ¢., the Leyden plate, 8.14.3.1.12] approximately in the year goo, and 
according to my previous assumption fix upon the year 700 as the latest limit which we 
should have to assume for the discovery of the elements of the writing, the invention of the 
calendar, and the age of the Kingdom of Tollan.’””? 


On the basis of Seler’s statement that 10.2.10.0.0 (Stela 2 at Quen Santo) fell 
about the middle of the fifteenth century, 9.0.0.0.0 would have fallen 443 years 
earlier, or about 1007 A.D. His introduction of the kingdom of Tollan here is purely 
gratuitous, having nothing whatever to do with the subject in hand. It serves to 
illustrate, however, Seler’s strong Mexican bias in approaching all Maya problems, 
and his constant tendency to look for Nahua origins of purely Maya cultural pheno- 
mena, whereas the truth is that such borrowings as are found, were all the other 
way, 1. ¢., by the Nahua from the Maya, save only during the Toltec Period of the 
New Empire, after 1182-1201, when a late Nahua influence made itself strongly 
felt at certain New Empire cities, notably Chichen Itza. 

Finally, we have the correlation of Lehmann, proposed more recently than any 
others of the German school, but almost as inaccurate as the preceding: 


“There is an interval of 350 years between the earliest and the most recent dates of the 
monuments of Quirigua, while the famous nephrite slab of Leiden (from the borders of 
British Honduras and Guatemala) is some 560 years older than the most recent of all the 
dated monuments hitherto known, namely, the stela fragment of Sacchana [Stela 2 at Quen 
Santo]. 

“The majority of the dates of the monuments of Copan and Quirigua are, however, 
included in a period of about 180 years, while the oldest known dated monument, Stela C 
at Quirigua,’? 1s appreciably nearer in time to the Leiden slab than the other more recent 
monuments with inscriptions. Since the ruins where these monuments occur were in this 
condition for the greater part, at the time of the congquzsta, I conclude from this fact, and also 
from the good state of preservation of the easily weathered stone material of the monuments, 
that the Golden Age was in the tenth to eleventh centuries after Christ.’”4 


1See Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, p. 790. See also ibid., pp. 835, 836. *See ibid., vol. 11, pp. 29, 30. 

3Lehmann falls into error here, believing the Initial Series 9.1.0.0.0 on the west side of this monument de- 
clares its contemporaneous date. This is not the case, however, the contemporaneous date being the Period 
Ending date 9.17.5.0.0 on the opposite (east) side, about 320 years later. This latter date places Stela C in its 
proper position (9.17.5.0.0) in the sequence of the Quirigua monuments and not 276 years earlier than the next 
earliest contemporaneous monument there (Altar M, about 9.15.0.0.0). 

4Lehmann, I910, p. 693, note I. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 529 


Assuming that Lehmann is referring to the last half of Cycle 9 (i. €.59.10.0.0.0 
to 10.0.0.0.0, the Middle and Great Periods of the Old Empire) when he speaks of 
the “Golden Age” of Copan and Quirigua, we reach about 700 a. D. for 9.0.0.0.0 in his 
correlation. 

It is apparent from the foregoing quotations, ranging from Sapper’s 490 A. D. 
ca. to Forstemann’s 1134 A. D. for 9.0.0.0.0, that these German correlations all place 
the period of the Old Empire much too late, making its Middle and Great Periods 
approximately contemporaneous with either the Renaissance or Toltec Period of 
the New Empire. 

This is a necessary corollary from their correlations, since no matter what may 
be thought of the correlations of the u kahlay katunob and Christian chronology 
and of the former with the Long Count (1. ¢., the Initial Series) suggested here, the 
fact remains that the first chronicle from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel 
carries Maya history back in an unbroken stretch of 56 katuns, 7. ¢., 1,103.93 years, 
from 1536 A. D. to the discovery of Chichen Itza, which it fixes as having taken place 
some time between 432 and 452 A. D., depending on what part of Katun 6 Ahau the 
discovery was made. And this being true, it would follow from the German corre- 
lations that much of the history of Yucatan was prior to 9.0.0.0.0, and that Copan, 
Palenque, Tikal, Yaxchilan, Piedras Negras, etc., were actually the contemporaries 
of Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Mayapan, Izamal, etc. ‘This is indeed reductio ad absur- 
dum. It is contrary to every item of archzologic and historic evidence, and these 
four German correlations may be rejected in entirety. 


4. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 


The first American correlation brought forward was that of Bowditch, based 
upon the three passages in III, IV, and IX, describing Event C. By looking for a 
Tun 13 or Tun 14 (depending on whether Napot Xiu died 5 or 6 years before the 
end of the katun) of any Katun 13 Ahau when the day g Imix fell on 18 Zip (1.2., 
1g Zip) and the year-bearer (7. ¢., 2 Pop) was 4 Kan, he finds in Goodman’s tables 
three places, more than 11,200 years apart between the extremes, where these 
several conditions are fulfilled, two of which are so improbable that he rejects them, 
accepting the third as the proper correlation of Maya and Christian chronology: 

“If now we accept the first date of 55.13.2.13.3.1,' as the date of Ahpula’s death, we 
shall have the date of Stela 9 of Copan as a.D. 34 [1.¢., B.C. 94 for 9.0.0.0.0, 128 years earlier], 
since the death occurred in 1536. If we accept the second date, 55.9.17.14.11.1,” as the true 
one, Stela 9 must represent a date of B. c. 3814 [7. ¢., B. C. 3942 for 9.0.0.0.0], and in the case of 
the third date, 57.2.14.13.16.1,? in which the period to elapse to the end of Katun 13 Ahau is 
the nearest to an exact 6 tuns, we should throw back Copan to B. c. 11,250 [1. ¢., B. C. 11,378 
for 9.0.0.0.0]._ It is not probable, however, that either of the last two dates 1s correct, 
both because of the immense time which would have elapsed, and because the monuments 
show signs of no such age. We are, therefore, left to the date a. p. 34 as the probable date 
of the earliest stela of Copan which we know of at present.’’4 


The writer has already given the reasons why he rejects this correlation in 
connection with the discussion of Event C on pages 478-487. Aside from the 
several excellent positive reasons for preferring the correlation here suggested, which 
does not aim at exactness to the day, as does that of Bowditch, his mistrust of the 
year-bearer 4 Kan in these passages, the ambiguity of the expression “6 tuns were 











1According to the writer’s conception of the Long Count, based upon the evidence furnished by Stela 10 at 
Tikal, where the great-cycles, great-great-cycles, great-great-great-cycles, and possibly even the great-great- 
great-great-cycle of an Initial Series appear to be recorded, this date would read:,(1).1.11.19.13.2.13.3-1 9 Imix 
19 Zip. 

2This date the writer would express as (1).1.12.0.2.17.14.11.1 9 Imix 19 Zip. 

8This date the writer believes was (1).1.12,1.1.14.13.16.1 9$Imix¥19:Zip. 

4See Bowditch, 19014, pp. 136, 137. 


530 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


lacking to the end,” and finally, the certainty that 9 Imix 18 Zip (1. ¢., corrected to 
19 Zip) could not have been the day of Napot Xiu’s death if he died in 1536, as all 
sources agree, have led him to reject the more detailed data in these three passages 
and to accept only the larger fact in which they all concur, namely that Napot Xiu 
died in 1536 in Katun 13 Ahau, which also agrees so remarkably with all the other 
events described. 

Goodman, of all the American investigators, assigns the most recent dates to 
the Old Empire cities; his correlation, like the others, is based upon the evidence 
furnished by the chronicles in the Books of Chilan Balam, which, however, he inter- 
prets differently from everybody else: 

“Thus the assurance given us by the annual calendar is made doubly sure, and we may 
rest certain that the 13 Ahau 7 Xul [7.¢., 8 Xul], which fell on October 30, 1539, was the end 
of a 13 Ahau katun [7. ¢., Katun 13 Ahau] in the Xiu chronological count. We next turn to 
the Archaic calendar for a katun- ending with 13 Ahau 8 Xul, remembering we are supposed 
to have overcome the difference of a day [1. ¢., between 7 Xul and 8 Xul]. We must also keep 
in mind that owing to my rearrangement of the calendar [7. e., his rearrangement of his own 
tables], it will be a date now at the head of a column. 

‘Happily, in support of the correctness of the Xiu chronology, we find it in a reasonable 
position—the 16th katun of the 11th cycle of the 54th great cycle [7. ¢., 11.16.0.0.0]. 

“Assuming that date to have been October 30, 1539 (as the foregoing considerations 
show there is just reason for so doing), we are enabled to aline every other date in the Archaic 
scheme and to fix at least the prosperous period of all the ruined cities. 

“The result shows that Copan, Quirigua, Tikal, Menche, Piedras Negras, and the other 
more modern capitals flourished from the sixth to the ninth century of our era, speaking in 
round terms, and that Palenque was in existence 3,143 years before Christ.’”! 

It must be admitted at the outset that Goodman’s correlation agrees closely 
with that given on page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, in spite of the fact that 
he could have had no knowledge of that manuscript when he proposed his corre- 
lation. Remarkable as this agreement is, it should not be stressed too strongly, 
however, in its favor, since he freely admits he follows Xiu sources, and that the 
Itza, Chel, and Cocom records were different. The pivotal point of his correlation 
is the statement that Katun 13 Ahau 8 Xul ended on October 30, 1539, which 
agrees with page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab to this extent, that the latter 
states that Tun 13 Ahau 8 Xul ended in the year 11 Ix, which began in 1539. 

The evidence upon which Goodman based his identification of this katun is 
nothing more than an unwarrantable translation of the passages in III, IV, and 1X 
describing Napot Xiu’s death. He first accepts a passage in I, and enothedt in an 
unnamed Book of Chilan Balam quoted by Brinton (see No. 2, page 495), both of 
which indicate thac 1541 was a year 13 Kan, in which case 1536 could not have been 
4 Kan, but 8 Cauac. He accepts 4 Kan, however, as the year of Napot Xiu’s death 
and next looks for its nearest occurrence to 1536, which he finds as beginning in July 
1545. This he admits was in Katun 11 Ahau, thereby throwing over the only two 
points which the writer believes it is safe to accept in these three entries, first, that 
Napot Xiu died in 1536, and second, that this fell somewhere in Katun 13 Ahau. 
He justifies these emendations of the original sources by mistranslating the passage 
uacp’el haab u binel ma tz’ococ u xocol oxlahun ahau cuchie as “the sixth year will not 
end from the count of the 13 Ahau,” which in Gates’s opinion 1s not the sense of the 
Maya here at all, the meaning probably being that 6 tuns were still lacking before 
the end of Katun 13 Ahau. 

Having previously decided the year of Napot Xiu’s death was 1545, 6 years 
before that brings him to 1539 as the year in which Katun 13 Ahauended. Finally, 








1See Goodman, 1905, p. 646. Goodman evidently believed that the Cycle 1 dates at Palenque were historical 
and that the monuments upon which they are inscribed date from that remote period. There is little doubt, 
however, but that these early dates were mythological or possibly astronomical in nature, and in every case 
Secondary Series bring them down to very much later times, 7. ¢., to the middle of Cycle 9. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 555 


since he finds only one 13 Ahau in the sixth tun before 9 Imix 19 Zip, and since that 
one was 13 Ahau 8 Xul, he assumes that 8 Xul was the position in the haab on 
which the Katun 13 Ahau referred to in these three passages ended. 

Aside from all the archeological and historical objections to this correlation 
noted in the discussion of page 66 of the Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, which of course 
apply here as well, Goodman’s correlation contradicts, in their larger aspects, the 
very sources upon which his conclusions are based. For example, he states that 
Napot Xiu died in 1545 in Katun 11 Ahau, whereas all of the authorities except 
Cogolludo, as we have seen, give the Christian year as 1536, and III, IV, and IX 
the katun as 13 Ahau, and X as the first tun of 11 Ahau. 

Again, if 1539.830 was the end of Katun 13 Ahau, then the end of Katun 2 
Ahau was 1520.117, which contradicts the entry in I, stating that a katun ended in 
1517. And further, if Katun 13 Ahau ended in 1539.830, then the fifth tun of Katun 
11 Ahau ended in 1544.758, which contradicts the entry in I stating that Merida was 
founded after the fifth tun of Katun 11 Ahau was completed, the actual foundation 
having taken place in 1542.016, as we have already seen. 

Again, if 1539.830 was the end of Katun 13 Ahau, then the sixth tun of Katun 
g Ahau ran from 1564.471 to 1565.457, which contradicts the entry in X to the 
effect that Bishop Toral arrived in the sixth tun of Katun 9 Ahau, the date of his 
arrival actually having taken place between 1562.583 and 1562.622. 

These contradictions are so numerous and so striking that on the face of them 
it appears highly improbable that Goodman’s correlation can be correct. As 
representing Xiu chronology at the time of the Spanish Conquest, however, it may 
be safely accepted in view of its remarkable agreement with page 66 from the 
Chronicle of Oxkutzcab, but as a correlation of Christian and Old Empire chronology 
the writer believes it may be just as surely rejected. 

Joyce reaches a date of 95 B. c. for 9.0.0.0.0, or within one year of the date 
reached by Bowditch for the same cycle-ending: 

“T have tried to show that the buildings at Chichen Itza may be divided into three main 
classes, corresponding in a rather remarkable manner to the principal epochs of Tutul Xiu 
tradition; and I have pointed out that what may be considered the earliest group is dis- 
tinguished by a date in the “long count” characteristic of the central Mayan region. I 
have also explained that there is reason to believe that Chichen was inhabited before the 
arrival of the Tutul Xiu, and the presence of the early Maya in Yucatan is supported by the 
“long count” date at Tuluum.! ... . In any case the essential point on which I would 
lay stress is that the initial date at Chichen belongs to the period before the arrival of the 
Tutul Xiu. Now, the katun expressed in this initial date would be termed in the short count 
‘katun 3. ahau,”? and I think it reasonable to assume that this corresponds with the last 
‘katun 3. ahau’ of the Tutul Xiu chronology before they arrived at Chichen Itza. It may, 
of course, be earlier, but I think this extremely unlikely, having regard to the similarity be- 
tween such buildings as the Monjas group and those of the central Mayan area. If this 
assumption be admitted, then the dates of the monuments can be brought into line with 
historical chronology, as appears in the Appendix.’” 





1As already noted in Chapter V, this early Tuluum date, 9.6.10.0.0 on Stela 1, to which Joyce refers, is not 
the contemporaneous date of that monument, but a date exactly 1 cycle earlier. The contemporaneous date is 
10.6.10.0.0, actually 80 years later than that on the Chichen Itza lintel. (See Morley, 1918a, pp. 274, 275.) 
Joyce, however, uses this early noncontemporaneous date in support of his contention that there were Maya at 
Chichen Itza before the arrival of the first migration thither mentioned in the Books of Chilan Balam (Joyce, 
1914, p- 349). This argument, in so far as it depends upon 9.6.10.0.0 as the date of the Tuluum stela, therefore 
collapses in view of this later reading. mn 

2Joyce is in error here when he states that the katun expressed by the Chichen Itza Initial Series was Katun 
3 Ahau. As already noted, the current katun of that Initial Series was a Katun 1 Ahau (10.3.0.0.0 I Ahau a 
Yaxkin), the previous katun being 3 Ahau (10.2.0.0.0 3 Ahau 3 Ceh). This error makes no difference in his final 
result, however, since he correlates this Katun 3 Ahau with 10.2.0.0.0, as it should be. 

3Joyce, ibid., pp. 359, 360. Joyce has been included in the American group, since his correlation follows the 
method first proposed by the writer. (See Morley, 19104, and above.) 


532 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Joyce’s correlation follows the same method of procedure as that first sug- 
gested by the writer in 1910, and would have reached the same result had he not 
made the obviously unlikely assumption that the Chichen Itza lintel dates from the 
Katun 1 Ahau before the city is first said to have been discovered in the u kahlay 
katunob, instead of the first Katun 1 Ahau after that entry. He overcomes the 
resulting anachronism, which, if left unexplained, is fatal both to his correlation 
and that of Bowditch, by assuming that the site had been previously colonized by 
earlier migrations of the Maya not noted in the u kahlay katunob, and that the 
Initial Series lintel was made by these earlier unmentioned inhabitants of the city. 
Indeed, according to his correlation-table! the Itza? did not reach Chichen Itza 
until 10.10.0.0.0, some I50 years after the contemporaneous date of the Initial 
Series lintel. This assumption, however, is not borne out by the archzological 
evidence he cites,’ and moreover, his hypothesis is contradicted by the chronicles 
themselves, which use such expressions as “‘in these years that they ruled Bakhalal 
it occurred then that Chichen Itza was discovered,’ “Sit occurred that Chichen Itza 
was learned about,’’® “in Katun 6 Ahau took place the discovery of Chichen Itza,’ 
in describing this event. 

Joyce follows Brinton here in believing that Chichen Itza was already in exist- 
ence when the first migration recorded in the u kahlay katunob reached there.’ 
This is unnecessary, as the verb chicpahci is properly rendered discovered, and as 
used in this connection doubtless refers to the discovery of the two great natural 
wells or cenotes around which the city of Chichen Itza (literally “the mouths of the 
wells of the Itza’’) later grew up. 

To postulate a settlement there prior to the discovery of the site in 9.14.0.0.0 
6 Ahau 13 Muan is contrary not only to the best interpretation of the archeological 
and documentary evidence, but also to the historical probabilities of the case, and 
this correlation also may therefore probably be dismissed. 

Spinden in his first correlation® assigns the date 160 A. D. to 9.0.0.0.0, but 
recently he has brought forward another for which he claims accuracy to the day.?® 
Under the latter he reaches March 31, 304 A. D. (N. S.), for 9.6.10.0.0 and February 
3, 176 A. D., for 9.0.0.0.0._ His method is composed of the same two steps as those 
mentioned on page 467, and indeed for his second step, the correlation of the u 
kahlay katunob with Old Empire chronology, he accepts the writer’s correlation, 
first announced a decade ago. His method in the first step differs only in the fact 
that he has brought to bear on this phase of the problem the current Aztec chro- 
nology of the early sixteenth century, which was contemporaneous with the close 
of the New Empire in Yucatan, an interesting and new contribution, although 
hardly to be trusted as conclusive evidence in the Maya correlation problem. 











1See Joyce, 1914, Appendix ITI. 

Joyce (ibid., p. 359) states that it was the Tutul Xiu who arrived at Chichen Itza on this migration, but the 
chronicles themselves clearly state that it is the Itza whose movements are being described. (See Brinton, 1882, 
pp. IOI, 145, 159, and 169.) 

3Joyce, ibid., p. 349. It is true there are three distinct architectural periods at Chichen Itza, as stated by 
Joyce: the first period from which dates the Initial Series lintel here under discussion, and that part of the city 
known as Old Chichen Itza; the second or Renaissance period, exemplified by such buildings as the Monjas and 
associated structures, the Red House, etc.; and the third or Nahua period, from which date by far the greater 
number of the buildings now standing, the Castillo, the Ball Court, the High Priest’s Grave, and probably all 
that great architectural complex known as the Court of the Columns. Where Joyce appears to the writer to fall 
into error is in believing the first period at Chichen Itza was prior to its discovery as recorded in the Books of 
Chilan Balam, rather than after it. Mercer clearly demonstrated there was no earlier occupation of Yucatan 
than that of the Maya, and to presuppose the Maya were there before their own chronicles say the country was 
discovered is indeed piling up imaginary obstacles in the way of a simple logical solution of this question. 

4Brinton, 1882, p. Io1. 5Tbid., p. 144. 6Tbid., p. 158. "Ibid, p. 124. 8Spinden, 1913, table 2. 

°This latter correlation was announced in a paper read before the American Anthropological Association 
at Cambridge, Massachusetts, on December 29, 1919. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 533 


Spinden assumes that the specimen year 12 Kan given by Landa was the year 
1553-1554, which we have already seen (page 497) is probably true, and that it may 
have begun on July 16, 1553 0. s. (July 26, 1553 Nn. s.). This latter assumption, 
however, is very doubtful, although it is evident Landa so believed, since he begins 
his specimen year 12 Kan on July 16. 

A passage from the Book of Chilan Balam of Mani, and another from the Book 
of Chilan Balam of Tizimin (see Nos. 9 and to respectively on page 495), however, 
while they confirm the fact that the year 12 Kan began in 1553, indicate that its 
opening day fell on July 10 and not July 16. In other words, two native sources 
of highest general reliability here contradict a Spanish source on a matter concern- 
ing both chronologies. In such cases the writer prefers to follow the native sources, 
particularly when the Spanish authority is Landa, whose statements concerning 
the native chronology, while accurate in a general way, are rarely precise.? If this 
point were the only objection to Spinden’s correlation, it might be overlooked on 
the grounds that it would only dislocate his tables of equivalents by 6 days, but 
there are others, even more serious. 

Accepting 12 Kan 2 Pop as equal to July 26, 1553 (N. s.) for his point of contact, 
and holding fast to 9 Imix 19 Zip in a year 4 Kan as the date of Napot Xiu’s death, 
he reaches the date September 22, 1545, for that event, thereby not only sacrificing 
the statements of III, IV, and IX that it occurred in a Katun 13 Ahau, and of X, 
that it occurred in the first tun of Katun 11 Ahau, but also throwing over the 
almost unanimous opinion that it occurred in 1536. 

It is the same old question over again in any correlation which rests on this 
passage in III, IV, and LX, what to accept and what to reject, since as they stand 
they contradict themselves in the light of practically all the other evidence. 

If Napot Xiu died in a year 4 Kan on the day g Imix Ig Zip, then he did not die 
in 1536 or in a Katun 13 Ahau, unless all the other authorities are in error. Or, 
on the other hand, if he died in 1536 in a Katun 13 Ahau, then he could not have 
died on g Imix 19 Zip in a year 4 Kan. The whole question reduces itself as to 
which must be rejected. ‘The writer has chosen to hold to the larger time period 
in each chronology involved here, the katun and the Christian year, while Spinden 
and Bowditch hold to the smaller time period in each, the year-bearer and the 
Gregorian day. 

Spinden next accepts the writer’s correlation of the u kahlay katunob and the 
Long Count as already noted, and assigns to the Katun 13 Ahau just before the 
final conquest of the country, the Initial Series 12.9.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Kankin, and 
using his value of September 22, 1545 (N. Ss.) for 9 Imix 19 Zip, he runs back until he 
finds the first occurrence of 13 Ahau 8 Kankin before this, which will be April 22, 
1536 (N. s.). But this value for the end of Katun 13 Ahau contradicts both I and X 
in fundamental statements, as the following will show. April 22, 1536, N. s., was 
April 12, 1536, 0. s., or, as used in this discussion, 1536.281. Spinden therefore ends 
Katun 13 Ahau in 1536.281 and the previous katun, 2 Ahau, in 1516.568, which is 
in contradiction to the statement in I that a katun ended in 1517. 

Again, his correlation makes Tun 6 of Katun 9 Ahau run from 1560.922 to 
1561.908, whereas X states that Bishop Toral arrived in this tun, and the Spanish 
sources agree that he arrived between 1562.583 and 1562.622, nearly 9 months later. 


1These passages both state that 11 Chuen 18 Zac fell on February 15, 1544 (0. s.), on which basis, allowing 
for the leap years in 1544, 1548, and 1552, 12 Kan 2 Pop would have fallen on July 10, 1553 (0. s.), 6 days earlier 
than Landa’s date. 

2For example, he assigns the arrival of the Spaniards at Merida, which took place in 1541, to Katun 11 Ahau 
correctly, but proceeds to make it the first tun of that katun, instead of the sixth or seventh, as most of the 


native authorities indicate. 





534 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The most remarkable point brought to light by Spinden (but, as already noted, 
unfortunately one which can not be relied upon in correlating the Long Count 
with Christian chronology, as shown by the above disagreements with the native 
sources to which his correlation gives rise) is the fact that at the time of the Spanish 
Conquest the New Empire year-bearers were only 1 day behind the Aztec day- 
count if 12 Kan 2 Pop really was equal to July 16, 1553 (0. s.). 

The point of contact between Aztec chronology and the Christian Era is the 
statement, generally admitted, that Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) fell on August 13, 
1521, or as Spinden uses all his dates in New Style, August 23, 1521, in a year 3 
Calli, on the day 1 Coatl 3 Xocouetzi. On this basis he finds that the Maya year 
6 Kan began on August 3, 1521 (N. s.), while the corresponding Aztec day 6 Cuez- 
palin was 1 day earlier, August 2, 1521. ‘This is a striking coincidence to say the 
least, but even if it were due to a former direct correlation, it only goes to prove 
the writer’s contention that the chronology in current use in Yucatan at the time 
of the Spanish Conquest had been powerfully affected by Aztec chronology, even to 
the point of losing its most fundamental characteristic, the conception of time as a 
succession of elapsed units. And most important of all, it can not be relied upon to 
establish a day-for-day correlation between Christian and Old Empire chronology. 

The writer has already expressed his distrust of these so-called exact corre- 
lations. Eventually, by means of astronomical data indubitably present in the 
inscriptions, it is hoped that such an exact alinement of the two chronologies may be 
effected, but with the data now available for this purpose in the early Spanish and 
native writings no such accuracy can be achieved, nor indeed should such be 
sought. ‘The original sources are too inexact to warrant such close reading. More- 
over, in the case of Spinden’s correlation, aside from this general criticism of his 
method, several specific examples of disagreement with the u kahlay katunob and 
Nakuk Pech have been cited, which are sufficient in themselves to cause its re- 
jection as a day-for-day alinement of the two calendars. 


The correlation of Maya and Christian chronology according to different authorities. 


Date in Date in 
Christian Era Christian Era 
Authority. corresponding Authority. corresponding 
to 9.0.0.0.0 tog.0.0.0.0 
of Maya Era. of Maya Era. 





A. D. 
176} 
176 
435 
ca. 490 
ca. 700 
ca. 1007 


1134 





The above table gives the equivalents in Christian chronology for the Initial 
Series 9.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh according to the several systems of correlation 
described, those of the Guatemalan group alone being omitted as too indefinite 
for inclusion in a table of this sort. Authorities marked with an asterisk (*) do not 
give a correlation of the Initial Series and the u kahlay katunob, and the equivalents 

1Spinden’s year for 9.0.0.0.0, 176 A. D., agrees with that suggested here, for the reason that he agrees with the 


writer in accepting 12.9.0.0.0 13 Ahau 8 Kankin as the katun which ended in 1536, although he places Napot 
Xiu’s death 9 years later. 


CORRELATION OF MAYA AND CHRISTIAN CHRONOLOGY. 535 


given for them are the dates they assign to the opening entry of the u kaklay katunob, 
which in the writer’s correlation, however, is seen to have had the Initial Revies 
g.0.0.0.0 8 Ahau 13 Ceh; thus equivalents in Christian chronology for the same Maya 
date are given for all at them. 

In conclusion, the several points which, in the writer’s opinion, make the cor- 
relation suggested here more plausible than, and preferable to any of the others 
described, have been recapitulated below: 

(1) It is based only upon general statements concerning which there is almost 
perfect unanimity of opinion in the original sources. 

(2) It does not aim at correlation to the day, and therefore does not have to 
depend upon the few doubtful passages which purport to give the exact day of a 
certain event, the latter data being flatly contradicted by the bulk of the source 
material and even by statements to the contrary within themselves. 

(3) It agrees better with the archzological and historical evidence, and gives 
rise to a more logical sequence of events than any of the other correlations described. 
It brings about no anachronisms, which in some of the others may be avoided only 
by improbable assumptions, or forced interpretations of the original sources. 

(4) Finally, it develops the astonishing fact, hardly to be explained as a mere 
coincidence, that the opening entry in the u kahlay katunob, which is admittedly of a 
mythological character, fell on the date 9.0.0.0.0 of the Maya Era, a round number 
in their chronological system and the beginning of the period which witnessed their 
first great cultural florescence, a date which ever afterward must have been associ- 
ated in the Maya mind with the beginning of their Golden Age. 


= 


“ ae (4p A ailpy hai wat r np dea 


7 & «+, ar 
~ 7 3 re uctia te) 7 
7 an) ‘ ® ¢ u 






= 


Ae ee Ha i “f 






wnced ‘0° ii de ea 
ars. 6. crs wie a 
is ina rae Sv ET wnat ala 


;J 2 Sinats va oa ek oes ag 


401 bh TP ene oe oy Fe wharki 
7 A 
: — ,* 7 AL . aie, 


















aes tr loin! Arh eae 
p30 Ae ia; ied hace | ¥ eta wd “a 
ve VonaANy et wi binm j nviee) ot 


r ; a bf reqas i le if. MPa he x : 
qa Sah eopat &frfe gan wee 
12 av ntmanwyer tate aie nl 
* wives Wil woul Apis hie, € “ 
7 
a : towij aa wig 4 


iy Fass 


APPENDIX III. 
THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE COPAN MONUMENTS. 


The nomenclature of the Copan monuments, followed throughout the present 
investigation, is that inaugurated by Maudslay in 1885, added to by the several 
Peabody Museum Expeditions from 1891 to 1895, and finally completed by the 
writer in 1910, 1912, and 1915 to 1919. Unfortunately, like anything else which 
has grown up piece-meal, and is the result of different minds working at different 
times, this nomenclature is open to serious objections, but in order to avoid con- 
fusion, as well as in recognition of Maudslay’s well-merited priority, the Peabody 
Museum followed his names for the mounds and monuments, adding on where 
necessary, and the writer has thought it best to do the same. 

The first nomenclature known is the numerical one under which Galindo 
describes the several monuments he saw in 1834. He seems to have made a num- 
ber of drawings of these, but they had been removed from his report when it first 
came into Gates’s possession in 1917 and their present whereabouts is unknown 
unless they are in the archives of the Société de Géographie of Paris. (See Appen- 
dix XI and also note I, page 19.) 

Five years later, in 1839, Stephens gave the monuments alphabetic designa- 
tions, and this nomenclature was the first one to be published (see Stephens, 1841). 

In 1877, Meye visited the ruins and secured data for a map of the Main Struc- 
ture and drawings of some of the monuments, which were published in 1883 (see 
Schmidt, 1883). He was the first to adopt a two-fold nomenclature, generally, 
although not invariably, using numbers for the monuments and sculptures and 
letters for the principal architectural features, such as courts and mounds. 

In 1885, when Maudslay undertook his principal work at Copan, the existing 
literature of the site was so scanty and the previous work of such a casual character 
that he was amply justified in starting his system of nomenclature de novo. He 
named the monuments as they are now known from A to U inclusive, and the 
principal mounds from I to 29 inclusive, his No. 29 being the pyramid at the south- 
east corner of the village plaza (Group 9). This series of monuments includes 12 
stele, A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, M, N, and P, and 11 altars, G,, Gz, G3, K, L, O, Q, 
R, S, T, and U. (See Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 1, plate 1, and vol. 1 of text, p. 15.) 

When the Peabody Museum began its work in 1891, it was very wisely decided 
to continue Maudslay’s previous nomenclature, as stated by Putnam in his editorial 
note to the first volume of the Museum Memoirs by Gordon: 


“As Mr. Maudslay had given names, with reference by letters and figures, to the various 
portions of the Ruins and to prominent sculptures, the same designations are given in this 
report and on the accompanying plan. Additional features have been indicated by con- 
tinuing in sequence the letters and figures, thus avoiding duplication and confusion.”? 


In conformance with this policy, three newly discovered altars were given the 
letters X, Y, and Z, and then, the alphabet having been exhausted, the new stelz 
found were numbered from I to I5 inclusive, which is the only consistent feature 
of the nomenclature at Copan. Maudslay’s numeration of the mounds was retained, 

1Gordon, 1896, p. iii. 
537 


538 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


except for a few minor variations,’ and the mounds lying to the south and west of 
the Main Structure were numbered from 30 to 56 inclusive.2 (See Gordon, 1896, 
plate 1, and the accompanying insert, which gives the corresponding legend.) 

At this point the writer’s nomenclature of the monuments begins. As the 
Peabody Museum additions to Maudslay’s list include nothing for the letters V 
and W, the writer has assigned two small altars found by the First Peabody Museum 
Expedition at the Main Structure to them. 

In order to preserve the single element of consistency now present in the 
nomenclature of the Copan monuments, 1. ¢., the designation of stela by numbers 
exclusively, broken in one place only by Altar 14, the writer has found it necessary 
to employ a second alphabet, designated thus, A’, B’, C’, etc., in order to find names 
for newly-discovered altars, fragments of unknown nature, and other remains show- 
ing inscriptions. Indeed, these latter have now reached a total of 26, and this 
second alphabet is exhausted. It is recommended that subsequent discoveries of 
objects of this kind be given the letters of a third alphabet, thus, A’, B’’, C”, etc. 

The new stelz discovered or first described by the writer have been numbered 
-from 16 to 25 inclusive, and, barring the single exception already noted, Altar 14, 
Nos. 1 to 25 allrefertostelz. Itis further suggested that any new stele discovered 
hereafter should be numbered in sequence from No. 25 on, so as to preserve this 
single element of consistency in the Copan nomenclature. 

The writer has made no addition to the nomenclature of the mounds, which 
remains as the Peabody Museum left it at the conclusion of its work in 1895. 

Descriptions of all the foregoing monuments, under the several letters of these 
two alphabets and the numerical series from I to 25 inclusive, together with several 
architectural features, such as the Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26, the Review- 
ing-stand in the Western Court (No. 12 of the Peabody Museum nomenclature), 
for example, will be found in Chapters II, III, and IV, with the exception of Altars 
14 and O, neither of which presents an inscription. The writer has never seen the 
former, and except for the fact that it is somewhere along the river-bank on the 
north side, as shown by the Peabody Museum photograph No. 1904, its provenance 
is unknown. The latter is at the western end of the Court of the Hieroglyphic 
Stairway, just east of Mound 7. (See Maudslay, 1889-1902, plate 1.) 

This nomenclature, which has grown by accretion, so to speak, is at best a 
patch-work affair, a jumble of two alphabets and two numerical series, one of the 
latter referring to monuments, the other to architectural features, such as mounds, 
stairways, etc., but the existing literature based upon it is already so large that it 
has appeared ade in the present investigation, and will probably so prove 
in any subsequent one, to change it, and the writer has followed in the footsteps of 
Maudslay and Gordon, the field director of the Fourth Peabody Museum Expedi- 
tion, who wrote the final report, building on from the point where they left off. 

In the following list of equivalents, the nomenclature followed in this investi- 
gation is given in the first column, and the Galindo, Stephens, and Meye equiva- 
lents, when there are any, are given in the second, third, and fourth columns 
respectively. The order of arrangement follows the sequence in which the monu- 
ments were first named, and not their chronological order as in Appendix IX. 

1Maudslay’s No. 24, the Jaguar Stairway in the Eastern Court at the Main Structure, is No. 23 of the Peabody 
Museum nomenclature; the former’s No. 23, being a stairway near the latter’s No. 24. The former’s No. 29, 
the pyramid at the southeastern corner of the village plaza, is not numbered by the Peabody Museum at all, the 
latter’s No. 29 being a small mound and terrace south of the high pyramid, No. 16, at the Main Structure. Finally, 
No. 21a, not numbered by Maudslay, is between the latter’s Nos. 21 and 22. 

2No. 50 is just north of the high pyramid, No. 16. No. 35 does not appear on Gordon’s map of the Main 


Structure, but on the accompanying legend he states it was a part of the same group as Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34. 
Presumably it is the small mound just northwest of his No. 34. 


NOMENCLATURE OF THE COPAN MONUMENTS. 539 


Nomenclature of the Copan Monuments. 











Present Galindo Stephens Meye 
nomenclature. nomenclature. nomenclature. nomenclature. 

A (Maudslay)....... iy AZ TOUS ON eters tee erctiars | eae cia ae 5 

B te ee cores Thscahde ae ee tae es Pes gk RE ee oe 
G . O 

D eet tr eect pel PTR | SR ae Ane naa s: | heel ae Aes Mees 
E «“ 

ge Re er eee OA a mee Beer ee ee ye ee 3 

Gi SEE MRE ante homer erie cs SE meee cass 2 eee ae ee ok. ie vase 3 
Ge Re eentome, Ae ate steak eke. <5 ENE Pec e eee eat. vis BEES. 
Gs 2 SA: ald phish Ota IRE Ws ok Ad nh oes ee re hee ek che be hac ck bs 
H Se Re Pee eee Lelie ais ese oatenn Stents eet 2 

I ry T 

J “ 

K «“ 

L “ ‘ 
M ka he I on Bk erat a | ae en Beas ie O 

N Se OI 8 Mentioned, not named.| C?........... I 

O “ 

P 2 ag *N e FE Ss ete t carer ates i in Fite oe a c 

Q : oF Ne neaN Un ei in A MT cent che els 8 

R “ 

S “ 3 

T i SIRES ERS Toph yg Ah file SO 19 

U = ap Seay BREE ate Rin CSR een a 20 

PAL ENE WIICERD OO nets vis Be 3 1 ee ol a eae Sukkot SI MoGde aoa bEnaod Ga arocn Aor 
W “ “ 

ORCI ASR ATS RS ge ee Ss Peg (es enn 
vi “ “ “ 

Zz “ “ “ 

I “ “ “ 

2 hed bah a et ae POR eee, Caen P(?)3 

3 “ « K 

4 ¢ « « M4 

“ “ “ 

S Shel eretedota ec teteelclean peor etar ec Sat Gover | cleperat ole Aeter etal ict [farsheietetsl cslehe ¥ ae Makes 
6 “ “ “ 

Gf “3 li Al ES RLS ted a ot aren ean Possibly mentioned. 
8 “ “ “ 

9 “ “ “ 
16." . - NETHMOMeR NOt NAUNEC bara oie Le hich lad eens mole acerkieda.a'e 9 8G 
TI-* : Pf hd Re, ese 5 ad a es ete ee 
128s A € Mentioned. not named sare sete tie ae ce cals rated cates oie eee 
bg SRS | Mee eer I ete eet | ne ernest crake 6 fia srt'w oa ovale Rove Soata! ane oe 
ene be CARE EET ee ete era als ome Soh Lies util « Suneie o6.5 nee AoE + whe 
15 te , i Sy EAP AED OL Oe ISS Mop OC Or re Possibly mentioned.® 








Note.—With Stela 16 commences the writer’s nomenclature, running through Stela 25, and from Altars and 
Fragments A’ to Z’ inclusive. Galindo gives Altar H’ the number 17, and mentions Altar I’, without, however, 
giving it any name. 


1S$tephens (1841, vol. 1, p. 152) says: “Toward the south [i7. ¢., north from his Statue T, Stela I], at a distance of 
fifty feet is a mass of fallen sculpture with an altar marked R on the map, and at ninety feet distance is the statue 
marked Q [Stela F].” It is clear from this position that under R, Stephens is referring to one of the three Altars G. 

2As already stated on page 279, note 3, Stephens, through a mistake in his field-notes, incorrectly calls the 
figure on the north side of Stela N a separate monument, 7. ¢., his Statue D, which he locates as just south of Stela 
M. (See Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, map facing p. 133.) 

3Meye’s map is so inaccurate that it is impossible to tell whether he refers to Stela 1 or Stela 2 as his fallen 
monolith P. 

4Stephens incorrectly states in the legend on his map (09. cit., vol. 1, facing p. 133) that this monument, 
Stela 4, is standing; but he corrects this error in his text (ibid., p. 157). 

5The missing numbers and letters in the Galindo, Stephens, and Meye nomenclatures refer to general archi- 
tectural features or to sculptures having no inscriptions. 


oh) 


= 


. 
a Gta is é “ye 
ap 
rw & 
bis 9 
é 
° 
4 . “~A 
ey oul 
rs 7 ‘ ~ 7 
7 
’ “ 
—s, ‘ 
oi 
i 
. 
- e re 
i ba 
‘ 
U ] 
‘ ‘ 
" 
‘ 
& 
=. 
, i i 2 
’ a 
+ - 
. i 
‘ 
- a +s 
ioe 
iy 
® 
‘ 
| . } 
‘ 
e a4 7 
? ity ) te. 


; A ar >a 
GAH aA hee ep eee, 
GPA em t _ se ‘ed oy 


* Med 
q 
sq oa 
. .. ce 
J ‘ 
9) yo. a - a 
= _e= @ ' : 


eu 
£ 


= 


ce — “ 





<4 


APPENDIX IV. 


A DESCRIPTION OF THE RUINS OF COPAN, BY DIEGO GARCIA DE PALACIO. 
IN 1576.1 


“Near here, on the road to the city of San Pedro, in the first town within the 
province of Honduras, called Copan, are certain ruins and vestiges of a great popu- 
lation and of superb edifices, of such skill and splendour that it appears that they 
could never have been built by the natives of that province. They are found on 
the banks of a beautiful river in an extensive and well-chosen plain, which is tem- 
perate in climate, fertile, and abounding in fish and game. Amongst the ruins are 
mounds which appear to have been made by the hand of man, as well as many 
other remarkable things. 

“Before arriving at them we find the remains of thick walls, and a great eagle 
in stone, having on its breast a tablet a yard square, and on it certain characters 
which are not understood. On arriving at the ruins we find another stone in the 
form of a giant, which the elders amongst the Indians aver was the guardian of the 
sanctuary. Entering into it we find a cross of stone, three palms in height, with 
one of the arms broken off. Further on we come to ruins, and among them, stones 
sculptured with much skill; also a great statue, more than four yards in height, 
which resembles a bishop in his pontifical robes with a well-wrought mitre (on his 
head) and rings on his fingers. 

“Near this is a well-built plaza or square with steps, such as writers tell us are 
in the Coliseum at Rome. In some places there are eighty steps, in part at least 
of fine stone, finished and laid with much skill. 

“In this square are six great statues, three representing men, covered with 
mosaic work and with garters round their legs, their weapons covered with orna- 
ments; two of the others are of women with long robes and head-dress in the Roman 
style. The remaining statue is of a bishop, who appears to hold in his hand a box 
or small coffer. They seem to have been idols, for in front of each of them is a large 
stone with a small basin and a channel cut in it, where they executed the victim 
and the blood flowed off. We found also small altars used for burning incense. 
In the centre of the square is a large basin of stone which appears to have been 
used for baptism, and in which, also, sacrifices may have been made in common. 
After passing this square we ascend by a great number of steps to a high place 
which appears to have been devoted to mitotes and other ceremonies; it seems to 
have been constructed with the greatest care, for through the whole of it there can 
still be found stone excellently worked. On one side of this structure is a tower or 
terrace, very high, and overhanging the river which flows at its base. 

1The above description of Copan is extracted from a letter written by the Licenciado Doctor Don Diego 
Garcia de Palacio, Oidor of the Audencia Real of Guatemala, on March 8, 1576, to Philip II, King of Spain. 

Squier, in the title of his translation of this letter, gives the following subtitle, which adequately summarizes 
its contents: “ Being a Description of the Ancient Provinces of Guazacapan, Izalco, Cuscatlan, and Chiquimula, 
in the Audiencia of Guatemala: with An Account of the Languages, Customs and Religion of their Aboriginal 
Inhabitants, and a Description of the Ruins of Copan.” (Squier, 1860, p. I.) 

This letter has been published in four English editions, four Spanish editions, two French editions, and one 
German edition (see bibliography, p. 624), but because of its unusual importance in the present connection, being 
no less than the first description of Copan by an eye-witness known, it is republished here. 

The region covered by Palacio’s report, the four Indian provinces mentioned in Squier’s subtitle, lies to the 
west, southwest, south, and southeast of Copan, roughly in that part of Central America where the Republics 
of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador come together at Cerro Brujo. The translation quoted above is by 


Squier (1860, pp. 88-97), revised slightly by Maudslay (1889-1902, vol. 1 of text, pp. 5-7.) 
541 


542 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


“Here a large piece of the wall has fallen, exposing the entrance of two caves 
or passages extending under the structure, very long and narrow, and well built. 
I was not able to discover for what they served or why they were constructed. 
There is a grand stairway descending by a great number of steps to the river. 
Besides these things there are many others which prove that here was formerly 
the seat of a great power and a great population, civilised and considerably advanced 
in the arts, as is shown in the various figures and buildings. 

‘‘T endeavoured with all possible care to ascertain from the Indians, through 
the traditions derived from the ancients, what people lived here, or what they knew 
or had heard from their ancestors concerning them. But they had no books relat- 
ing to their antiquities, nor do I believe that in all this district there 1s more than 
one, which I possess. They say that in ancient times there came from Yucatan 
a great lord who built these edifices, but that at the end of some years he returned 
to his native country, leaving them entirely deserted. 

“And this is what appears most likely, for tradition says the people of Yuca- 
tan in time past conquered the provinces of Uyajal, Lacandon, Vera Paz, Chiqui- 
~mula, and Copan; and it is certain that the Apay language which is spoken here is 
current and understood in Yucatan and the aforesaid provinces. It appears also 
that the design of these edifices is like that of those which the Spaniards first dis- 
covered in Yucatan and Tabasco, where there were figures of bishops and armed 
men and crosses. And as such things are found nowhere except in the aforesaid 
places, it may well be believed that the builders of all were of the same nation.” 


APPENDIX V. 


A DESCRIPTION OF THE RUINS OF COPAN, BY FRANCISCO ANTONIO FUENTES Y 
GUZMAN, IN 1689.1 


CHAPTER TEN. 
OF THE WAR AND CONQUEST OF COPAN. 


Of the famous city of Copan there remains to-day barely a heap of ruins. At 
one time this opulent city was the terror, and then later the support of the entire 
district. Its chief,in alliance with him of Esquipulas, gave the latter many resources 
of every sort toward his defense against the Spaniards; these then encountered the 
most determined resistance in the conquest of Copan itself, to which event we now 
come.” 

When the Conqutstadores reached the borders of Copan they found the city 
filled with defenders. The garrison was a numerous army of troops from Zacapa, 
Sensenti, Guyxar, and Ostua, in a total of more than 30,000 men armed with swords 
(macanas), arrows, slings, and with ample food supplies (Fuentes, vol. 11, chap. 2, 
p. 125). The site they occupied was defended to the south by the extended moun- 
tain range of Chiquimula de la Sierra, to the north by that of Gracias 4 Dios, to 
the west by a ravine running north and south and filled with the waters of the 
famous Copan River. This was done through a flood-gate artfully designed, which 
when released flooded the entire stretch of land and rendered it impassable, espe- 
cially for the Spanish troops and their horses. Besides this defense, the Cacique 
had caused to be constructed behind that great moat a trench of heavy timbers, 
with loopholes for the archers. Besides this he had a stockade built around the 
entire camp, to make the whole impenetrable. Such was the state of things when 
the Spanish army approached, much disconcerted to find themselves before such 
formidable enemies. 





1The above description of Copan is taken from the unpublished second part of “Recordacién florida, Dis- 
curso Historial, Natural, Material, Militar y Politico del Reyno de Guatemala, 2° parte. Que escribe el Capitan 
D" Fran® Antonio de Fuentes y Guzm4n, vecino patrimonial, y Regidor de la misma muy noble y muy leal ciudad 
de Guatemala. Afio de 1689.” 

This work is unquestionably the leading authority on the history of Guatemala during the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries, and in a larger sense occupies the same position in its particular province as do the his- 
tories of Sahagtin and Bernal Diaz del Castillo for Mexico, and those of Landa and Cogolludo for Yucatan. 

The first part only has been published (see Fuentes y Guzman, 1882-1883). The original manuscript of the 
unpublished second part is in the archives of the Cabildo of Guatemala City, where are also the originals of Bernal 
Diaz del Castillo’s equally important Historia verdadera de la Conquista de Nueva Espana and of the Actos de 
Cabildo of Guatemala City for the first 6 years (1524 to 1530), both of which latter have been published. 

The second part of the Fuentes y Guzman “ Recordacién florida” is a beautiful example of seventeenth cen- 
tury Spanish script, legibly written in a clear black ink, in an excellent state of preservation, and illustrated with 
several water-color drawings, including an important map (in perspective) of the city of Santiago de los Caballeros 
de Guatemala (now Antigua Guatemala), as it was in the latter part of the seventeenth century. 

The two chapters given in full below are not taken from the Fuentes y Guzman original, but from a paraphrase 
thereof written by Mariano Padilla at Guatemala City during the middle of the last century. 

When Padilla quotes Fuentes y Guzm4n direct, he uses a blue ink and a more vertical hand-writing, but when 
he is only paraphrasing he writes in black. He faithfully renders the sense of the original, but presents it in a more 
readable style, that of Fuentes y Guzman being somewhat turgid. 

The first extract below, Chapter X of Book IV (pp. 200-210 of the Padilla redaction, folios 133-135 of the 
original Fuentes y Guzman manuscript) deals with the conquest of Copan by Hernando de Chaves in 1530, and 
the s.cond, Chapter XI of Book IV (pp. 210-219 of the Padilla redaction, folios 136-139 of the original Fuentes y 
Guzman manuscript), treats of the ruins of Copan. It is almost self-evident from Fuentes y Guzman’s extraordi- 
nary descriptions that he never saw the latter personally, but described them only from hearsay. The writer is 
indebted to Mr. William Gates for the above translation. 

2See the Pipil MS., fol. 13; the Cakchiquel MS., ff. 9, 10, 17, chap. Aruc-Chilabal; the Quiché MS., fol. 17, 
chap. Ahpopquihan; also the original report of H. de Chaves. [This note is in the handwriting of Padilla.] 


543 


544 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Nevertheless, the officer Andrés de Ulloa advanced to reconnoiter, with 70 
Spanish footmen. The rest of the Spanish army, under command of Hernando de 
Chaves, and which had just completed the conquest of Esquipulas, consisted of 
800 Tlascaltecas, Mexicans, and Cholutecas. 

After reconnoitering the camp, Commander Chaves took up the positions which 
seemed best for success in his task, while protected against immediate attacks by 
the enemy, further increasing his army by another thousand Miteco archers. 

While this went on, the Cacique Copan Calel remained with his army inside 
the fortifications, with abundant provisions and everything necessary to withstand 
a long siege; such a siege would, however, have been impossible from the smallness 
of the investing forces, unable to guard all points, although the cavalry scouted 
all the surrounding country to prevent the introduction of supplies. Hernando 
de Chaves therefore determined to approach the enemy lines for inspection, and to 
see if he might not invite the chief to peace. For this purpose he selected a number 
of well-armed cavalry, putting them in command of Gaspar de Polanco, a man 
in whom he had great confidence, and proceeded with them to the opposing lines. 
~ There through interpreters he proposed to the valiant Chief Copan Calel that he 
submit to the King of Spain, and also recognize the True God. The chief appeared 
to listen calmly to the argument of Chaves, but suddenly he broke out enraged, 
that neither he nor his would submit to any foreign domination, but were resolved 
to perish all together before enduring a foreign yoke; addressing Chaves personally, 
he declared that fortune would not always smile on him or be propitious. Uttering 
these last words, he shot an arrow (the sign of defiance among them), which was 
followed by a rain of these missiles, obliging Chaves and his men to retire at once. 

That night Hernando de Chaves called a council of his leading captains, Juan 
Sanchez de Guelva, Garcia de Aguilar, Miguel Quinteros, and Martin de la Mez- 
quita, and it was decided to attack Copan Calel the next morning. That night the 
guards were doubled at the important posts. 

Just at dawn the following day, and before sounding the reveille, Chaves drew 
up his forces. The infantry he gave coats of quilted cotton, with swords and shields; 
the cavalry he equipped in the best fashion to meet the darts of the enemy. There- 
upon he went to overlook the field, and decided to attack on the side of the moat, 
while seeking the shallowest place, both for filling and for giving passage to the men. 

Scarcely, however, had Chaves and his advance forces come near, when the 
troops of Copan Calel appeared on the opposite side, well armed, with handsome 
plumes, and with shields of tapir-skin, arrows, slings, and hardened spears. Then 
there began a severe combat between the Copanecos and the Conquistadores, which 
lasted nearly the whole day without other result than dead and wounded on both 
sides. ‘The Indians, however, suffered much the worst through the fearful arquebus 
fire, which still in no degree affected their spirit; so that, defending themselves with 
heroic valor, they forced Chaves to retire with heavy losses among hisown men. In 
this fight Lucas Magana was wounded in the thigh, for which he went lame ever 
after. 

After this disaster Hernando de Chaves did not know what to do, as every 
day was making his enterprise more difficult. The cavalry scouted and destroyed 
the neighboring fields; he himself consulted his principal officers, and constantly 
looked out for his resources; to ask help from Guatemala seemed humiliating; he 
fluctuated, in fine, in the midst of a thousand difficulties, until a chance freed him 
from them all. 

Copan Calel held a prominent cacique confined within his palaces, for an out- 
rage upon a woman of the court, for which offense he had ordered the prisoner’s 
nostrils slit, and other ill treatment. He [the punished cacique,] enraged, swore to 


DESCRIPTION OF COPAN BY FUENTES Y GUZMAN. 545 


be avenged, and, as is usual in such cases, his vengeance was far-reaching, not only 
upon his enemy but upon his country. He passed to the camp of Chaves, and 
informed him how he could take the fortress, for the moat was not of equal depth 
in its construction at all points, and so he showed him which were the points by 
which access might be gained. 

With this information, on the next day Chaves marched against the enemy 
fortifications, which he found well garrisoned with soldiers armed with lances of 
copper and obsidian stone (chay), besides their usual weapons of darts, hardened 
spears, and slings; these, on seeing the Spanish troops approach, raised a terrible 
noise with their drums and trumpets of shells, and with shouts and frightful cries. 

On arriving at a convenient distance from the moat and trench, Chaves sent 
forward a company of infantry under the command of Alonso de Murga, after 
whom followed Garcia de Aguilar and the no less daring Miguel Quinteros. But 
Murga had no sooner moved against the trenches than he received a severe wound, 
which did not, however, cause him to desist. 

The Copanecos resisted with admirable fortitude, so that our soldiers could 
not gain a foothold in the trenches; these they held like statues in their places 
(Fuentes, vol. 11, p. 134). In this crisis Chaves, who was surveying the moat 
between the two forces, sent Isidro de Mayorga with some soldiers to the aid of 
those fighting, and then after his reconnaissance sent in the rest of the infantry and 
the cavalry; in these troops Gonzalo Lépez, Diego Camargo, Bartolome Garrido, Luis 
Melendez, and Crist6éval Marin distinguished themselves by their spirit, not to 
leave the field without taking the trench. In this attempt it came on that the com- 
bat became general and more bitter than at any time before. (Fuentes, vol. 11, 
chap. 2, p. 134). All the forces of Copan Calel hurled themselves on the invaders, 
who in their turn seemed like immovable mountains in the moat, since they could 
not advance and were resolved not to yield ground. Meanwhile the Cacique Copan 
Calel visited all the points attacked, exhorting his men to their defense, and that 
they should die rather than give way to their opponents. Then action here became, 
one might say, individual, for every man sought an enemy to engage. (Fuentes, 
vol. 11, p. 134.) The Conquistadores made various efforts to take the trench. The 
horsemen threw themselves to the ground and opposed their iron armor and swords 
of steel to the lances, masses, and arms of the enemy; but all was in vain, for the 
invaders fell, thrown from the trench into the moat, and this grew filled with the 
spoils of the dead. The besieged replaced their losses, the living taking the places 
of those killed, and so presenting the same front to the invaders. All was horror 
in this theater of death. The besiegers and the besieged fell together into the same 
ditch, the one and the other suffered the same fate, and fell to their own graves. 

In this state of things, Juan Vasquez de Osuna, covered with mud and with 
the blood that now almost filled the moat, remounted his horse and like a furious 
tiger threw himself upon the intrenchment with the mind to be cut to pieces. The 
horse by his weight overthrew a great portion of the palisade, and burst into the 
midst of the fight and of a great multitude of Indians, who under the surprise gave 
him passage. There he sustained a combat as unequal as it was desperate against 
the multitude of the Indians, who hampered themselves with their arms, and by 
their very fury to kill him. Behind Vasquez de Osuna then followed 12 other 
horsemen, stimulated by his example, carrying terror and dismay with them among 
the ranks of the Indians. These the Conquistadores did not permit to recover them- 
selves, but threw themselves with yet greater impetus upon the defenders of the 
fortress, among whom they made huge slaughter. 

Meanwhile the General Copan Calel was re-enforcing his people, present in 
person at the points of greatest pressure by the Spaniards. When he saw at last 


546 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


the tremendous losses suffered on his side, and that it was no longer possible to 
restore the order of battle either among his men or in the conflict itself, he with- 
drew in good order to his quarters, where he continued the defense with a number 
of valiant men who, although few, were most dexterous in the use of arms. But 
naught availed them; after a thousand disasters they had to yield to the force of 
the Spanish arms, which remained in possession of the field. 

But still the valiant General Copan Calel would not surrender, since adverse 
fate has no power over great men. (Fuentes, vol. 1, p. 135.) He gathered again 
the remnants of his army within the walls of Copan, passed them in review, and 
retired in good order with his troops to Sitala, a place within his seignory. There 
he set about reorganizing his army, reinforced by neighboring lords, in order to go 
back against his capital, Copan, now occupied by the troops of the conqueror. 

Twice in succession Copan Calel attacked the Spanish forces shut up within 
the strong walls of Copan; and twice was he repulsed with immense losses, the 
more grievous since they fell on his principal captains and the precious remains of 
his best and choicest troops. 

After these repeated disasters, he consulted his prudence, his resources, and 
his chief counselors, resolving to send ambassadors to the Spanish commander, 
Hernando de Chaves. These were received and well treated by this latter, as was 
also the General Copan Calel himself, who came later and received from Chaves 
and his men presents of different articles from the Peninsula [Spain], which Calel in 
turn reciprocated by gifts of things native to the country. 

But this peace did not last long. Copan Calel, as one of the most powerful 
auxiliaries of Esquipulas (which had already submitted to the Spanish arms), 
endeavored to arouse against them some of the towns like Jupilingo, formerly a 
place of importance, as well as the lords of Esquipulas and Chiquimula de la Sierra 
themselves. He urged them that they should not remain longer under foreign 
domination, and that it was necessary for all to take up arms to overthrow the 
yoke, and fortune would not always turn her back upon them. So in fact they did; 
they began to disturb the Indian workers, to clear their fields and root up ees 
crops, killing them when they got them into their hands, and even carrying away 
their children to sacrifice them pitilessly at the famous temple of Copan. 

These hostile actions resulted in new and yet more sanguinary battles, in one 
of which the Spaniards lost two of their men, Fernando Encinas and Antonio de 
Cardona, who perished with 11 horses in the fighting outside the moat.} 


CHAPTER ELEVEN. 


OF THE ANCIENT CITY OF COPAN: OF ITS RUINS; THE CIRCLE, OR CIRCUS MAXIMUS 
OF COPAN; THE CAVE OF TIBULCA; NOTABLE ANTIQUITIES; ITS NUMEROUS POPULA- 
TION, OF WHICH NAUGHT TO-DAY REMAINS. 


This famous city was situated where to-day are only heaps of ruins; it lies 
between Chiquimula and the city of Gracias 4 Dios, though nearer to Chiquimula 
and close to the slopes of the sierra, where are found the famous Springs of Zara- 
goza. ‘The ruins lie in a beautiful plain, in a delightful and agreeable country; but 
now one finds there dense thickets and woods that make the going difficult. The 
word Copan signifies Bridge. The city has excellent water, and is crossed by the 
famous river of the same name. Its population is said to have been large, as even 
the town lists (padrones) would prove, were there more copies of papers, or perhaps 
more archival patents, or indeed if the secretaries and officials gave more zeal and 





1This passage of Fuentes is not clear; as he does not describe this action as fiercer than the taking of Copan.—M. P. 


DESCRIPTION OF COPAN BY FUENTES Y GUZMAN. 547 


care to the record files; but all this is to-day, as it were, with the Ministers of Hell, 
while if we were to give attention to these instruments, information both excellent 

and minute would come forth. (Fuentes, vol. 11, p. 136.) 

_ Be that as it may, Copan remained yet for a considerable time after its reduc- 
tion to obedience to Spain, a place of size and population. The Copanecos sub- 
mitted apparently; but in secret they continued to render worship to their idols, 
even allowing them to be seen in the buildings wherein they offered to them a 
service that was almost public, with offerings of perfumes and sacrifices of birds 
and other creatures. They even dared to place them behind the pictures in the 
temples, whence the Christian priests took them and gave them to the fire. (Fuentes, 
vol. 11, p. 136.) But all they could do made no headway against these practices, 
nor could continued preaching draw the Indians away from all kinds of their obsti- 
nate idolatry, until God punished them by sending a pestilence, which destroyed 
them all, save only 7 persons who had not been guilty of idolatry. (Fuentes, vol. 
11, id.) Since that time the succession failed among those who remained, so that 
with these dead and the rest wiped away the site remained desolate. (Fuentes, 
id., id.) 

At one side of these famous and gigantic ruins, in a very beautiful plain, is to 
be seen the Circus Maximus of Copan, intact and without injury of time. This 
without doubt was a most costly undertaking, of elegance and dexterity of work- 
manship, in the older times. Its construction seizes the attention, while many 
doubts are suggested by the apparel which adorns the figures of the men and 
women; for the first are dressed in military garments wholly in Spanish style, 
although the Demon could have shown the Spaniards thus arrayed to the Indians, 
even before the coming of the former to these shores. (Fuentes, vol. 11, p. 136.) 
We find at this place a spacious plaza, its fine form being that of a perfect circle 
surrounded by a large number of simple pyramids of hewn stone, 6 or 7 yards 
(varas) in height and of corresponding bulk. These figures on the outside of the 
great plaza follow the order of rustic architecture, but with all the symmetry of 
art; on the inside, however, they are raised with great dignity and beauty upon 
tables that serve them as bases, and which afforded ample seating space for the 
great crowds which gathered there to attend upon public celebrities. But what is 
most remarkable of all that is there to be seen is that at the foot of these tables, 
and against the columns, are standing certain very perfect statues of natural size, 
inset in order, now a man, now a woman, and both clothed in ancient Castillian 
style. These are executed with such beauty and skill that even the clasps can be 
seen on the girdles and sword-belts of the cavaliers. Their military apparel con- 
sists of short breeches, frilled collar, breastplate, shoulder-pieces, bracelets, helmets 
adorned with plumes, and short swords in the belt. The strangest of all is that these 
figures thus standing in the inclemency of the weather have lost none of the colors, 
green, red, and blue, with which they were painted, which are as if but newly laid 
on. The same is observed in the colors of the eyes, which still keep all their bright- 
ness, as do those of the hair and beard, and the chapes, scabbards, and pommels of 
the swords. 

Within the great circus is, as has been said, the place of sacrifice, which is of 
considerable height, and surrounded by many steps. Upon it is a small font resting 
upon a little column of very finely and perfectly cut stone, and still stained with 
the blood of the victims. 

Not far from this, but still within the precincts of the circus, now covered with 
brambles, is a portico of exquisite architecture, like the entrance to some palace; 


1The author does not tell what kind of pestilence this was, nor of what they died, nor the symptoms they 
showed; so we can not fill this gap.—M. P. 


548 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


on the sides are two men’s figures, clothed a la Espanola, of well-cut and beautiful 
stone; these, like those of the circus, have breeches, collar, swords, cap, short cape, 
and bear wands of justice in their hands (Fuentes, vol. 11, p. 137), so that they seem 
to guard the entrance to that superb edifice, perchance the residence or tribunal 
of justice of some cacique or principal Lord.! 

Passing within this portico, one sees two fine and lofty pyramids, on platforms 
and pediments in good taste and of excellent stone, from which project staples to 
which hangs a hammock of stone; and in this are two statues, of the two sexes, 
garbed in Indian style, with short upper garment, towel wrapped about the head, 
with lips, nostrils, and ears bored and with rings, and with plates on the knees and 
arms. ‘The woman’s figure wears an embroidered huipil, long skirts, large disks 
hanging from the ears, and a necklace of small disks about the neck; her hair is 
long and abundant, and fastened in a plait (rodete) on the top of the head. But 
most marvelous is that the hammock in which these two figures are placed moves 
at the lightest touch of the hand, and stays in motion for a long time. Nor is it 
less noteworthy that the hammock shows nowhere the least cementing, but seems 
formed from a single stone. So prodigious and rare a work is it that I do not believe 
the Romans or any other nation could have done it, and we have to believe it exclu- 
sively the work of the Indians. (Fuentes, vol. 11, p. 139.) 

At the entrance where this hammock is found, there is a beautiful and rich 
flight of steps which rises to the pavement of the circus, 10 or 12 steps from the 
facade to the hammock; it is of cut stone exquisitely worked, and is 33 feet de a 
tercia’ in height, and more than 5 in breadth. 

A short distance from the hammock we have just described is the entrance to 
the great Cave of La Tibulca. Hollowed in the foot of a hill, it has the form of a 
great temple built with much regularity and correctness, with great capacity inside, 
whither no one has dared to penetrate, for it is asserted that within are enchant- 
ments, and that kesides, all who daringly venture within are afterwards attacked 
by fevers. Notwithstanding this, it was entered by Captain José de Santiago, 
corregidor of Chiquimula de la Sierra, Padre Maestro Fernando de Monjarras, 
curé of the district, his coadjutor Pablo Gallardo, some Spaniards, their servants, 
and other persons whose names the author does not recall. It is declared that all 
of them, as a result of the trip, contracted “hard and pernicious fevers, a result of 
the enchantment.” Fuentes is not inclined to certainty upon this, but rather 
declares that the fevers were the result of the force of imagination and of the dis- 
orders common in those hot climates, where are various fruits like pineapples, 
custard-apples, bananas, agaves, oranges, and many other fruits. 

The Circus Maximus. of Copan resembles the Great Circus of Toledo. Tradi- 
tion affirms that in the time of the Conquest it was made the deposit and sepulture 
of a great treasure belonging to the native lords of that country and its confines, 
derived from the tributes imposed on the towns in the ranges of Gracias 4 Dios, 
the Choluteca, valley of Trujillo, Olancho, Sula, and Santa Cruz, of which treasure, 
still in existence, we shall say more in the third part. (Fuentes, vol. Il, p. 133.) 
The portal of this cave is adorned with a multitude of ornaments in exquisite taste 
and with all the beauties of art, all of stone cut and very well polished, like columns 
with their capitals, bases, pediments, and other artistic excellences, all in such 
quantity that out of these immense materials (says Fuentes, vol. 11, p. 138) four 
cathedrals could be built, and to spare. But most admirable and come of 
attention is that all this work, so perfect and so exquisitely tooled, could have been 








1This can only be Temple 22, which Maudslay excavated in 1885. The foregoing passage would almost appear 
to indicate that its roof was still intact in the seventeenth century. See pages 316, 317. 
2The foot de a tercia, or one-third of a vara, is about 28 cm. 


DESCRIPTION OF COPAN BY FUENTES Y GUZMAN. 549 


done in stone so hard, and cut perpendicularly. This cave has much light on the 
sides, given by certain lateral windows (the author does not tell how many) opened 
into the rock with the same proportion and mastery shown in the rest of the edifice. 

Certain Spaniards living at Gracias 4 Dios heard that great treasures were 
concealed in this cave, and came to visit it on that account; but they only found 
some empty chests, one of which held some sacerdotal vestments, and some altar 
coverings stained with the blood that had been spilled in the sacrifices and cere- 
monies of the pagan cult; there are also not lacking those who declare that the 
treasure had been removed elsewhere by enchantment. But what is certain is 
that more has been said about these Guwacas or hidden treasures than has yet been 
verified; though it is certain that the Indians, possessing great treasures, did con- 
ceal them when the Spanish approached. But who can surely tell where? 

Some will have it that the Circus Maximus was built by the Spaniards, relying 
on the statues garbed in that manner, saying that its building was due to the 
Audiencia of the Confines. But this conjecture lacks foundation, for in that time 
the Spaniards were involved in great disturbances and dissensions, distracting them 
even from most urgent affairs. 

Neither could Alvarado have built it, for he was only in Chiquimula and 
Gracias a few days, on his way to Puerto de Caballos, besides being much occupied 
with his various expeditions. Still less could it have been Fernando Cortés, who 
was not in these parts over four months. Besides this, there were then no stone- 
cutters in the country save Diego Martinez de Garnica, who received 400 pesos of 
fine stamped gold for the bases of the columns for the cathedral. So that we have 
no recourse but to confess that these admirable and exquisite works were done 
exclusively by the Indians, skillful in very many things, and especially in stone- 
work, as proven by their numerous stone idols. 


v3 








ri i 
by — a - 
, = . 
y = ’ Da Pa + Ms 
Fi; ‘ 
b a CH ps ee 
a n 
De DHS OF A 
sire? te? 
re » et ot 
g 5 é ij ) hy 
. rehmeew yf 
9 y ; a 
po’ Qe fe = Bp 
$644 be ifm y - 
4 @ 4 s 18\@ AS405 
+ ee ' 
é 69 
7 ™s 
ier ne ' t 'e : ad 
ve 7 ; 
‘ 
J 
4 
le 
‘ 
Seah Ky 
s ioe “9p Oba} ging f nf 
pest ne g 7 : 
) ee spl iu he ; 
i : oe 
a“ . i) j ‘Pal ieee 
i [aii | ») rie ete wenn, 
+, jd - Py Ay. irae 
‘ nee “ayes oii «pit pt ai 
re me eee Fy snnueatbatel 
. wag wack, ill wri bra 
iy xi = wi ia ante vo 
PoP iar a | ey wie 
eis we * 
4 Bi alg “a 5) OP tiges pay Tv 
=) eee . 
; ae Mink»! oy 
q - . - Re 7 
ba @ 
7 le 
¢ 2 _ -? 7 el $0. A 
oh c ; : 


APPENDIX VI. 
THE. SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES. 


The Supplementary Series is a group of glyphs, usually 8 in number, which 
never occurs independently, but which, if present at all, always accompanies an 
Initial Series. Goodman was the first to call attention to this group, which he 
believed fixed the position of the accompanying Initial Series in some other method 
employed by the Maya in counting time.!' Later he modified this view somewhat, 
coming to the conclusion that the Supplementary Series showed the relation of the 
regular chronology (7. ¢., the Long Count) to a special chronology in each city, 
dating 1 in each case from its foundation; in short, that the Supplementary Series 
were in the nature of ab urbe condita reckonings, starting from a different date in 
each city.” 

In 1901 Bowditch suggested the name Supplementary Series for this count, 
on the ground that the glyphs of which it is composed always stand close to the 
Initial Series terminal date, the meaning of which he believed they “supplemented” 
in some way, and hence the name Supplementary Series by which they have since 
been known.’ 

The writer’s own investigation of the Supplementary Series dates from 1907, 
but it was not until 1915 chat he announced the meaning of the group as presenting 
a lunar count of some sort,’ and it was not until 1916, in a special paper on the sub- 
ject for the Holmes Anniversary volume, that he was able to prove this by adequate 
mathematical evidence.® 

It is not his purpose to attempt to cover the ground of that longer and more 
detailed study here, but rather to state, as briefly as may be, the principal con- 
clusions which it brought out as to the nature of this group of glyphs, and to indi- 
cate the results of subsequent investigations along the same line, not only by him- 
self, but also by Guthe, R. K. Morley, and Willson, which are as yet unpublished.® 

The Supplementary Series occupies one of three positions with reference to the 
Initial Series: (1) immediately preceding the Initial Series terminal date; (2) im- 
mediately following the Initial Series terminal date; and (3) standing eee the 
two parts (7. ¢., the day and month-signs) of the ate Series terminal date. Of the 
80 Initial Series examined in 1916, 6 were found to fall in Class 1 above; 11 in Class 
2, and 63 or more than 78 per cent. in Class 3, which we may therefore conclude was 
the normal position, particularly during the Great Period, since most of the aber- 
rant examples in Classes 1 and 2 date from the Early or Middle Period. Thus, by 
their proximate position thereto, the Maya priests sought to indicate that this 
count was to be interpreted with and by the aid of the accompanying Initial Series 
in each case. 

The normal Supplementary Series (best exemplified at Quirigua and Piedras 
Negras) is composed of 8 glyphs, though this number is not constant and may rise 
as high as 9 (some of the Yaxchilan texts for example) or fall as low as 4 (Stela 3, 
Uaxactun). The earliest example known, Stela 20 at Copan [9.1.10.0.0 (?)], has 
7 glyphs, however, the only one missing being the non-numerical Glyph B. 

The sequence of these 8 characters, i. é., their relative positions in the series, 
no matter which are present, is extremely Cane. the only irregular feature being 
that in many texts, some of them, notably Glyphs D and E, are wanting. The 


ce Srey an ad ats ER SS SO a Es ee 2 eee 
1Goodman, 1897, p. 118. —*Lbid., 1905, p. 647. 3Bowditch, 1g01¢, pp. 5, 9, 15, 17, 19, and 24; and 1910, p. 244. 
4Morley, 1915, p. 152, note I. 5Tbid., 1916. 


6Guthe’s studies on the lunar series in the Dresden Colex are now in course of publication. See Guthe, 1920. 


551 


552 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
most important glyphs are at the end of the series, as will appear presently, and for 
this reason they were named first. The order of reading, however, as the glyphs 
follow each other in the inscriptions, is as follows: G, F, E, D, C, X, B, and A, the 
last usually immediately preceding the month-sign of the Initial Series terminal date 
as noted above. The relative frequency with which these glyphs occur in the 80 
texts under observation is as follows: 


Glyph A in 97 per cent. Glyph D in 50 per cent. 
B in 80 E in 30 
X in 93 F in 72 
C in 97 G in 35 


It will be seen from the foregoing tabulation that, on the basis of occurrence, 
Glyphs A and C are not only of equal importance, but also are of more importance 
than all the others. Then follows Glyph X, then Glyph B, and then the first four 
glyphs of the series, F, D,G, and E. These are relatively of much less importance 
than the last four, all except Glyph F occurring in half or less than half of the 80 
texts under observation. 

The glyphs of the Supplementary Series may be classified on the basis of a 
fundamental mathematical characteristic into two groups, as follows: (1) those 
which may have coefficients, including A, X, C, D, and E, and (2) those which 
never have coeficients, B, F, and G. Of these the second group is relatively of 
little importance in arriving at the meaning of this count, the gist of which seems 
to be expressed principally by Glyphs A, X, and C. 





Fic. 78.—Glyphs G, F, and B of the Supplementary Series: a—f/, Glyph G; g-/, Glyph 
F; m-r, Glyph B. The complete Supplementary Series from which these 
examples are taken are reproduced in Morley, 1916, plates 1-10. 


Let us examine the second group first. The writer has already expressed the 
opinion that Glyphs G, F, and B are signs of generalized meaning, and that they 
in no way affect the values of the Supplementary Series in which they are found. 
The first, Glyph G (see figure 78, a—f), when the Supplementary Series is in its 
normal position, 7. ¢., between the two parts of the Initial Series terminal date, 
always follows the day-sign; and when the Supplementary Series irregularly follows 
the Initial Series terminal date, it follows immediately after the month-sign; 
that is, by its immediate proximity to the day-sign it would appear to have had 
something to do with the diurnal count (7. ¢., the Initial Series) rather than with the 
lunar count proper; and this, moreover, 1s borne out by the internal evidence of the 
glyph itself, which, although it runs through a number of variants (see figure 78, 
a-f), both normal and head forms, is always to be recognized by the kin-sign which 
is invariably a part of it, and indeed is its only constant characteristic. The writer 
has already suggested the general meaning “this is the count of the days”’ or “‘here 


THE SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES. 553 


ends the count of the days”’ for this glyph; and, in all probability, it is to be inter- 
preted with the Initial Series in some such general way rather than with the Supple- 
mentary Series. 

The next glyph, F (see figure 78, g—/), is of exactly the same general character. 
When present, it always follows immediately after Glyph G, and like Glyph G never 
has a coefficient. Again, although it runs through a number of variants, both 
normal and head forms, it is always to be recognized by the a Coal 
peculiar superfix divided into three parts, the right being crescentic in sy 
shape; the middle, composed of two or three small circles; and the left a leaf-shape 
(see figure 78, g—l). ‘This element is the only constant characteristic of this glyph 





Fic. 79.—Glyphs A, C, D, E, and X of the Supplementary Series: a—-h, Glyph A; 
1-p, Glyph C; g-v, Glyph D; w-b’, Glyph E; c’-j’ Glyph X. The com- 
plete Supplementary Series from which these examples are taken are 
reproduced in Morley, 1916, plates 1-10. 


and gives it its meaning, for which the writer has suggested the following: “this is 
the count of the moons” or “‘here begins the lunar count.”’ The juxtaposition of 
Glyphs G and F, their relative positions with reference to the Initial and Supple- 
mentary Series, and finally the fact that the former is always characterized by a 
kin-sign, has led the writer to conclude that they are general signs, Glyph G stand- 
ing in the same relation to the Initial Series that Glyph F does to the Supplementary 
Series. 

Passing over Glyphs E, D, C, and X for the present, we reach Glyph B (see 
figure 78, m—r), the last of the non-numerical group and the next to last of the 
whole series. This glyph, although it occurs in both head-variant and normal 


554 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


forms, has three extremely constant elements: (1) the elbow element with crossed 


bands at the angles E 6 Sy (2) the small oval element always < 5EjTe > to be found 
somewhere within ithe angle formed by the eee [Sind (3) an 
ending prefix or UWsuperfix, which takes several forms. aire little animal 
head usually found in the angle of the elbow clement appears in at 
least one instance (Stela 11 at Piedras Negras) emerg- ing from Glyph 


=] and on the basis of this association, as 
well as the fact a Hat it always has an{‘y4 ending-sign, and finally because of its 
position, always immediately preced- (ing Glyph A, the writer has suggested 
for it the general meaning: ‘‘here ends the count of the moon’’ or “next follows 
the current lunar month.’’ This concludes the non-numerical signs, which, as 
already mentioned, doubtless had little real effect upon the meanings of the Sup- 
plementary Series. 

Turning next to the numerical glyphs, the most important of these is prob- 
ably Glyph A, the last sign of the Supplementary Series (see figure 79, a—h), and the 
key by means of which the general meaning of the whole count was first worked out. 
To begin with, the glyph itself, which is the moon-sign, is very constant in its 
normal form (Gieare 79, a—€) as well as in its head variant (figure 79, f); 1n fact, there 
is only one other variant known (figure 79, g and /), and that occurs but thrice.! 

The most constant characteristic about this glyph, however, and the one which 
gave the first clue as to its meaning, is its coefhicient, which is always 9 (figure 79, 
a, b, e, and h) or 10 (figure 79, c, d, f, and g), and which is always attached to the 
right of the glyph (figure 79, b, d, e, and f) or at the bottom (figure 79, a, c, g, and h); 
that is, never at the left or above, as in the case of all other numerical coefficients.” 

Férstemann had shown long before, in his study of the Dresden Codex, that 
the moon-sign there has a numerical value of 20, and in 1915 Professor R. W. Will- 
son, of Harvard University, suggested to the writer that Glyph A of the Supple- 
mentary Series, which was nothing more than the moon-glyph with a coefficient of 
9 or 10, was a sign for the 29 and 30 day month respectively, the nearest approxima- 
tions possible in terms of whole days of the exact length of alunation. He further 
suggested that the close resemblance of the moon element in Glyph A to those forms 
so often found in the Dresden Codex, where the moon-glyph is used as a numerical 
sign for 20, when taken into consideration with these coefhcients of 9 or 10, is of itself 
convincing proof that the Maya once used a lunar calendar consisting of alternate 
months of 29 and 30 days—such an arrangement as 1s in use in the Mohammedan 
calendar. And in a recent letter he refers the writer to a similar usage in the 
Babylonian lunar calendar in which the months were labeled 1 or 30 accordingly 
as they contained 29 or 30 days.’ It then became apparent why these coefficients 
of g and 10 were attached to the right of or below the moon-sign, instead of in the 
usual positions at the left or above. This was done in order to indicate thereby 
that they were added to the moon-glyph, giving totals of 29 (1. e., 20-+9) and 30 
(7.e., 20+ 10) instead of being multiplied by it, giving totals of 180 (1. ¢., 20X49) 
and 200 (20X10) as Maya coefficients do when they stand in the regular posi- 
tions to the left or above. 

The Maya had no fractions, and the only way they could keep the lunations 
correct in terms of whole days was to have some months composed of 29 days and 


A, CF i.e., the moon-sign proper, 








1(1) Stela A, Copan; (2) Stela N, Copan; and (3) the Hieroglyphic Stairway at Naranjo. 

“There are only four exceptions to this known, the last three texts at Quirigua, Stela I, Stela K, and Structure 1, 
9.18.10.0.0, 9.18.15.0.0, and 9.19.0.0.0 respectively, and on the west jamb of the north doorway of Temple 
11 here at Copan: 9.16.12.5.17. When the first three were inscribed, however, the purpose for which this 
differentiation of position had been devised was so well known that no mistake in meaning could arise about 
them, and their coefficients were allowed to go back to the regular positions for other coeficients. And for the 
explanation of the irregularity of the last, see pages 311-313. 3See Ginzel, 1906-1914, vol. I, p. 124. 


THE SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES. 355 


others of 30 days; and on the basis of this meaning the writer suggested that Gylph 
A declared the kind of month (1. ¢., whether composed of 29 or 30 days, a condition 
shown by Glyph A itself in each case), in which the accompanying Initial Series 
date fell, a hypothesis which has since become generally accepted. For example, 
Glyph A on Stela F at Quirigua has a coefficient of 10, and the whole glyph, there- 
fore, is to be interpreted as indicating that the corresponding Initial Series terminal 
date, 9.16.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip, fell in a 30-day month. 

The decipherment of this glyph at once established the general meaning of the 
Supplementary Series as a lunar count of some sort, which is further proved by the 
fact that no less than 6 of the 8 glyphs of which it is composed, in fact all except 
Glyphs G and F, at one time or another, and some of them all the time, have the 
moon-glyph as an essential part. 

Scarcely less important than the preceding sign is Glyph C (see figure 79, i-?), 
the fifth sign from the left, which occurs as frequently as Glyph A (in 97 per cent. 
of the texts under observation) and which, together with Glyphs A and X, are the 
three most important signs in the Supplementary Series. 

Glyph C, like Glyph A, is again constant, being composed of four elements 
which are always present in one form or another and a fifth, an ending prefix or 
superfix, which, since the Maya themselves omitted it in about two-thirds of the 
texts under observation, we may conclude was not essential to the meaning of the 
sign. [hese elements are: 

1. A hand, always present and never changing in form. 

2. A variant of the moon-sign, always present and never changing in form. 

3. A bar-and-dot coefficient, always either 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or in some cases no coefh- 
cient at all, which, since 1 itself is never found, is probably to be interpreted 
as the equivalent of 1 in this glyph, as in algebra 1a and a are the same. 

4. A human head, always present, though varying considerably, passing through 
a number of different types. 

5. The ending prefix or superfix alluded to above, wanting in about two-thirds of 
the examples. 

The first two are so constant that they may be passed with brief comment. 
The hand in the Maya inscriptions has always been found to mean “end of,” “‘close 
of,’’ and hence even “zero.” As attached to a variant of the moon-sign, therefore, 
it might perhaps indicate that a lunation or at least some longer lunar period had 
come to an end, or that possibly a whole month was in question. 

The third element, the bar-and-dot coefficients, of 2, 3, 4, 5,6, and no coefhicient 
at all, which hereafter will be called 1, is, on the contrary, probably the most im- 
portant part of this glyph. R. K. Morley was the first to explain this coefficient as 
indicating in each case the position of the month declared by Glyph A, in a higher 
lunar period composed sometimes of 5 and sometimes of 6 of these 29 and 30 day 
lunar months. In other words, that these coefficients were ordinary positional 
numerals, like any regular Maya coefficients, those of the katun for example, and 
that they fixed the positions of the current month in a higher lunar period, no 
coefficient corresponding to the first or opening position. 

His basis for this explanation is pages 51 to 58 of the Dresden Codex, where 
there are recorded 405 successive lunations, arranged in a series of groups, some of 
which contain 5 lunations each, but more 6 lunations each. The individual luna- 
tions vary from 29 to 30 days in length, but these are so cleverly combined in each 
group, some having 177 days (i. ¢., 3X 29+3 X30), others having 178 days (7. ¢., 
2X29+4 X30), and still others 148 days (7. ¢., 2X 2913 X30), that at no single 
group-ending in the entire period covered, nearly 33 years, is the cumulative error 
as much as a single day out with the total number of days in the corresponding 
total of lunar revolutions. 


556 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


This peculiar grouping of the 29 and 30 day lunar months on pages 51 to 58 
of the Dresden Codex into higher lunar periods of never more than 6 months and 
never less than 5 immediately suggested that Glyph C of the Supplementary Series, 
which was known to treat of the moon, and the coefficient of which was never 
found to be higher than 6, was in fact a positional indicator in the same sort of a 
lunar group, the bar-and-dot coefficients from 1 to 6 indicating the position of 
Glyph A in a 5 or 6 month lunar period, an explanation which has since met with 
general acceptance. 

But this did not explain why the Maya, either in the lunar calendar on pages 
51 to 58 of the Dresden Codex, or in Glyph C of the Supplementary Series, should 
have grouped the lunations into larger periods of 5 and 6 lunations each. The first 
to suggest the true explanation of this characteristic, or at least so far as pages 51 
to 58 are concerned, was Meinshausen, who in 1913 showed that the totals of days 
on pages 51 to 58 of the Dresden Codex very closely agree with the intervals be- 
tween eclipses of the sun and moon: 


“Tt will occur to everyone who observed the eclipse of the sun last summer (1912) what 
an impression such a phenomenon of nature makes; therefore the fact will be easily under- 
stood that among the ancient civilized peoples who were much occupied with astronomy 
there were none which has failed to leave conspicuous records of such events. When, there- 
fore, starting from this fact, I searched the Dresden Codex for eclipses of the sun and moon, 
I was nevertheless not a little surprised instead of the expected slight and brief remarks to 
find, besides others, a long chapter that seemed to me to deal with such phenomena. 
careful study of the periodicity of the eclipses of the sun and moon soon brought me to the 
conclusion that my assumption, in spite of the contrary explanation of Professor Forste- 
mann of this part of the manuscript, was wholly correct. The following comparisons of the 
periods between eclipses of the sun on the one hand and the moon on the other with the 
numbers of the Codex leaves no doubt that the latter actually arose from the observation 
of such appearances. 

“Eclipses of the moon ordinarily recur for the whole earth, as appears from the follow- 
ing table, after 177 days, but occasionally after 502 days. If 502 be divided by 177 the 
remainder is 148. The Codex shows exactly these numbers. The agreement is, moreover, 
of such sort that a coincidence appears to be excluded.” 


Meinshausen then gives a series of lunar eclipses which took place in the years 
1778 to 1811 (first table, page 557), and a series of solar eclipses which took place in the 
years 1775 to 1808 (second table, page 557), as recorded in the Berlin Astronomical 
Almanacs. ‘The first three columns in each table describe the date of the eclipse, 
viz, (day) 20, (month) 7, (year) 1778. ‘The fourth column shows the differences in 
days between two successive eclipses; the fifth column, the total number of days 
from the beginning of the series to each succeeding eclipse; and the last column, the 
numbers in the Dresden Codex. When the latter disagree with the corresponding 
totals in the fifth column by more than 1 day, they are inclosed in parentheses. 

In the first table, which shows the lunar eclipses, out of a total of 51 num- 
bers quoted from the Dresden Codex, 23 or 45 per cent. agree exactly; 12 or 24 per 
cent. are I day off; 2 or 4 per cent. are 2 days off; and only 14 or 27 per cent. are 
28, 29, and 30 days off. Meinshausen suggests that the reason there are any dis- 
agreements at all between the actual eclipse periods and the manuscript is due tothe 
fact that not all the eclipses are visible at any one point on the earth’s surface, and 
consequently that the remainder of 148 in the Codex was always placed arbitrarily 
immediately before an observed eclipse. 

The agreements in the second table, that showing solar eclipses, are even more 
significant. Here, of the 69 numbers quoted from the Dresden Codex, 28 or 40 
per cent. agree exactly; 26 or 38 per cent. are I day off; 2 or 3 percent. are 2 days off; 
and only 13 or 19 percent. are 28, 29, or 30 days off. These agreements are again so 


1Meinshausen, 1913, p. 221. 


THE SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES. 557 


Table of Lunar and Solar Eclipses. 





























































Ecuipses oF THE Moon. EcLIPsES OF THE Sun. 
Christian date Differ- Totals Codex Nos Christian date Differ- Total Cod 
5 ences. : ovens : ences. otals. odex Nos. 
Day. Mo. Yr: Day. Mo. Ye: 
20 7 1778 26 8 «1775 
4 12 1778 502 502 502 21 1 1776 | 148liqy 177 177 
177 679 679 29/ 
30 5 «1779 ae oe ‘? 19 hse uk tad girs 
23 ll 1779 15 7 1776 177 354 353 
177 1033 1033 30/ 
18 5 1780 14 8 1776 
178 1211 1211 148 502 502 
122 11 1780 9 1 1977 
502 1713 (1742) 177 679 679 
29 3 «1782 5 7 1977 
176 1889 (1919) 178 857 856 
21 9 1782 30 12 1777 
178 2067 (2096) 176 1033 1033 
18 3 «1783 24 6 1778 ; 
177 2244 2244 178 1211 1211 
11 9 ~—«:1783 ie mit es ag lg irre Te 
7 3 1784 16 5 1779 177 1388 1388 
176 2598 2598 29/ 
30 8 1784 14 6 1779 
502 3100 (3130) 177 1565 1565 
14 1 1786 8 12. 1779 
178 3278 3278 148 1713 (1742) 
11 7 1786 4 5 ‘1780 
177 3455 3455 176 1889 (1919) 
4 1 (1787 27 ~=«10~—Ss«1:780 
177 3632 3632 178 2067 (2096) 
30 6 1787 23 4 1781 
177 3809 3809 177 2244 2944 
aces 787 17 10° 1781 
502 4311 (4340) 177 2421 2492 
9 5 «1789 12 4 1782 
178 4489 4488 177 2598 2598 
Sk 1789 177 4666 4666 6 10 = 1782 | 148) 
29 4 1790 3 3 «1783 177 2775 2776 
177 4843 4842 29/ 
2 ED RL 177 5020 5020 1 4 (1783 |. 148) 
18 4 1791 27 8 «1783 178 2953 2953 
195 60304 1791 177 5197 5197 26 9 1783 30/ 
502 5699 (5728) 147 3100 (3130) 
25 2 1793 20 2 1784 
177 5876 (5905) 178 3278 3278 
21 8 1793 16 8 1784 
177 6053 (6082) 177 3455 3455 
14 2 1794 9 2 1785 
178 6231 6230 177 3632 3632 
11 8 1794 5 8 1785 
177 6408 6408 178 3810 3809 
4 2 1795 30 1 ‘1786 
177 6585 6585 176 3986 3986 
31 Reem Ay. 502 7087 (7116) 25 T 86 | 348) 
14 12 ~=«1796 20 12 1786 178 4164 4164 
: et 177 7264 7264 “ sbamkitt: 30/ 
177 7441 7441 147 4311 (4340) 
3. 12 1797 15 6 «1787 
177 7618 7618 177 4488 4488 
29 5 1798 9 12 1787 
178 7796 7795 178 4666 4666 
23 ll 1798 4 6 «1788 
502 8298 (8326) 176 4342 4842 
9 4 ‘1800 27 311 ——s«d1+788 
176 8474 8474 178 5020 5020 
2 10 1800 24 5 «1789 
179 8653 (8651) 177 5197 5197 
30 3 1801 a ohn a Meee lhg AH9 |) ON, 
22 9 ‘1801 14 4 1790 178 5375 5374 
178 9007 9006 30/ 
19 $1802 176 9183 9183 14 5 1790 | yan} 
ll 9 1802 8 10 1790 176 5551 5551 
3 hee TEN 502 9685 (9714) Par 29/ 
92 7 1804 178 9863 (9891) 3 4 1791 148 5699 (5728) 
1 4 RES 177 | 10040 10039 7 ~ ee aa 5876 (5905) 
+ a Paced 177 | 10217 10216 . ee oatici72 6053 (6082) 
: i Lelie 177 | 10394 10394 + Siar dpean tants 6231 6230 
rie psa 502 | 10896 (10925) + eee ette OEE 6408 6408 
177 | 11073 (11102) 177 6585 6585 
4, i (1807 178 | 11251 11250 5 9 1798. | 149) 
10 5 «1808 31 1 1794 177 6762 6762 
177 11428 11427 29/ 
$11 1808 177 | 11605 11604 ! B NT94 | 148} 
29 4 «1809 fe) iota hie 27 7 1794 soit 6939 6939 
23 10 1809 25 8 1794 
503 |(11960) | (11958) 148 7087 (7116) 
10 3 «18 20 1 1795 
177 7264 7264 
16 7 1795 
178 7442 7441 
10 1 1796 
177 7619 7618 
5 7 (1796 
177 7796 7795 
29 12 1796 
177 7973 7972 
24 6 1797 
177 8150 8149 
18 12 1797 
148 8298 (8326) 
15 Seu 1708) et ae ne 
8 11 1798 8474 
177 8652 8651 
4 5 «1799 
177 8829 8828 
28 10 1799 
177 9006 9006 
23 4 1800 
173 =| ~~ 94 9183 
18 10. i800, | 70, 
14 3 —«:1801 177 9361 9360 
30/ 
13 detec 1800 455) 
8 9 —-1801 177 9538 9537 
m4) eyo 21803 29) 
: Hearted beat: 9686 (9714) 
¥ Le ree Oy, 9863 (9891) 
- ep Screen gh UG 10040 10039 
+. aerial lo ks 10217 10216 
i OE ed OL 10395 10394 
176 10571 10571 
5 B > 1804 | ara 
1 1 1805 178. | 10749 10748 
29f 
30 1 1805 | yin 
27 6 1805 177 | 10926 10925 
26 7 1805 29f 
148 11074 (11102) 
21 12 1805 
177 11251 11250 
16 6 1806 | 97 11428 
10 12 1806 11427 
} Se Ses ess 11606 (11604) 
176 11782 11781 
ee STi a 
4 1808 30278 | 11960 11958 
5 1808 


558 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


striking as to make it practically certain that pages 51 to 58 of the Dresden Codex 
are an eclipse calendar, possibly of the sun, possibly of the moon, or possibly even 
of both. 

Through independent investigation Willson came to a similar conclusion about 
these same pages of the Dresden manuscript and in 1916 told the writer he believed 
them to be tables of possible solar eclipses;' and during that and the following year 
Dr. Carl Guthe made the lunar count, especially as presented in these pages of the 
Dresden Codex and in the Supplementary Series at Quirigua, the subject of an ex- 
haustive investigation in connection with work for the doctorate at Harvard Uni- 
versity... He has also assured the writer that these pages of the Dresden manu- 
script can have no other interpretation, although he disagrees with the details of 
Meinshausen’s conclusions. 

- Returning to the Supplementary Series again, the restriction of the coefficients 
of Glyph C tothe numerals I, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 only, can hardly be interpreted under 
the circumstances as indicating other than a similar condition, and it therefore 
appears probable that Glyph C is in some way connected with the eclipse phenom- 
enon, Glyph A showing the number of days in the month, whether 29 or 30, in 
which the accompanying Initial Series falls, and the coumitient of Glyph C, showing 
the position of that month in a group of 5 or 6 months, the length of which was 
determined in some way by the eclipse phenomenon. 

There remains to be explained one more important element of Glyph C, 
namely, No. 4, on page 555, the human heads of varying types. When the writer 
first approached this problem in 1907 he noticed that this head element is occa- 
sionally replaced by another element which looks like an eye, and which 
is the name-glyph of God M.® Subsequently, however, through 
the resemblance of these heads to head-variant numerals, he came to 
regard them as another set of numerical coefficients, of which the sign above was 
the zero, and he thus identified this element in 1916.4. These heads indubitably 
resemble the head-variant numerials, indeed are identical with them, as reference 
to figure 79 will show, 7 and p being clearly the heads for 10, k the head for 7, m the 
head for 4, / the head for 1 or 8, and 1 the head for 6, the last being unmistakable. 
Note the cross element in the eye. 

These resemblances are so close as to indicate the identity of these heads with 
those of the numbers given, but the correct explanation thereof now appears to the 
writer to be more in the line of his first identification of them as signs for specific 
gods than that they are numerical coefficients. 

It has long been suspected that certain numbers were associated with the 
different deities of the Maya Pantheon, 1o with the God of Death (A of the Schell- 
has classification); either 1 or 8 with the Maize god (God E); 4 with the old god, 
possibly Itzamna (God D), 5 with the god of the 5 closing days of the year, Uayeb 
(God N); and 7 with the god with the cruller-like ornament over his nose (perhaps 
God K). 

It now appears to the writer, on the basis of these associations of specific 
head-variant numerals with specific deities, that this element of Glyph C is to be 
explained not as a series of numbers, but as a series of names of deities who presided 
over the corresponding periods, a case in point being the eye element above (see 
figure 79, 7 and 0), which is surely the sign for God M. 





1See Morley, 1916, p. 394. 

The results of this investigation are in course of publication by the Peabody Museum as volume 6, No. 2, in its 
series of archeological and ethnological papers. See Guthe, 1920. 

’Compare Schellhas, 1904, figs. 45 and 46. 

4See Morley, 1916, pp. 380, 381. 


THE SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES. 559 


As yet what period these deities presided over is doubtful. Indeed, before 
suggesting what appears to be the most likely period in this connection from the 
limited evidence available, it is necessary to describe first the closest parallel 
afforded by Aztec mythology to the Maya practice, which we are supposing may 
be indicated by these head-elements in Glyph C, namely, the so-called Nine Lords 
of the Night of the Aztec pantheon. 

Bowditch has shown that, as portrayed in the Codex Borbonicus, the Nine 
Lords of the Night are there associated with a series of tonalamatls or 260-day 
periods, each Lord presiding in turn over a day thereof, the tenth day having the 
same Lord as the first day, the eleventh day the same Lord as the second day, and 
so on, each sequence being continuous, with but one exception. Since 9 and 260 
contain no common factors, and since the latter is divisible by the former with a 
remainder of 8, it follows that if the Nine Lords of the Night were applied to the 
days of the succeeding tonalamatls without a break in either series, each tonal- 
amatl would begin with a different lord, and not until the tenth tonalamatl came 
around would the First Lord, Xiuhtecuhtli, coincide with the beginning day of a 
tonalamatl again. ‘That is, all of the other eight lords would preside over the begin- 
ning days of tonalamatls before the First Lord would occupy that position again. 
As a matter of fact this is not the case, since the First Lord, Xiuhtecuhtli always pre- 
sided over the first day of all tonalamatls, and this could only be achieved by drop- 
ping the Ninth Lord, Quiahuitl, at the end of each tonalamatl, and having the 
Eighth Lord, Tepeyollotli, who always presided over the two hundred and sixtieth 
day, be followed by the First Lord in this one position alone. Bowditch clearly 
sums up the situation in the Codex Borbonicus as follows: 


“Apparently, therefore, the Tonalamatls succeeded each other, continuously lapping 
over from one year [365-day year] to the other, while the Lords of the Night accompanied 
the Tonalamatls and lost one of their number [always the Ninth Lord, Quiahuitl] with the 
ending of each Tonalamatl.’”! 


Let us next apply this general idea, namely that of a fixed series of deities, 
(not necessarily limited to g in number, however) presiding over a series of consec- 
utive time-periods (not necessarily the day), to this element of Glyph C, and see 
how it agrees with the data recorded. 

In the writer’s study of the Supplementary Series in 1916 he found 11 pairs 
(one a triplet) of Initial Series, the members of each pair of which record the same 
date, as follows: 


Pair 1. Stela 2, Copan 9.10.15.0. O Pair 6. Stela 24, Naranjo 262 03025. 12 
Stela 12, Copan i), Hoveniistel, (@ Stela 29, Naranjo Oulee1osss12 

Pair 2. Stela 13, Copan OpliaOLOngO Pair. -7.  Stea7,2. La Honrades, 9.37% 6: 0.0 
Stela 3, Copan 0), Ils, 0.0.) 0 Stela E, Quirigua Gal 70 an O 

Pair 3. Stela 1, Piedras Negras 0.12. 2.0.16 Pair 8. Stela 13, Naranjo Os 17 utOcOn O 
Stela 3, Piedras Negras Byers, Dfol sis Zoéph. B, Quirigua Ql 710.070 

Pair 4. Stela 11, Yaxchilan oy Fiey,. Veier ake Pair g. Stelai, Ixkun 0,186 0,0..0 
Stela 11, Yaxchilan GriGl% 00.0 Zooph.O, Quirigua onisl, OE, Io) 

Trip. 5. Stela 1, Yaxchilan 9.16.10.0. O Pair 10. Stela 8, Naranjo g.18.10.0. 0 
Stela F, Quirigua OulOnloLor oO Stela I, Quirigua 9.18.10.0. oO 

Stela N, Copan 9.16.10.0. 0 Pair 11. Stela J, Quirigua OS. 167 80 O 

Stela M, Copan 9.16, 5:0; 0 


Now, if these deities, presided over the successive days of the Maya chronologi- 
cal era, under the assumption that the head-element of Glyph C declares which 
deity it was that presided over the day recorded by the accompanying Initial Series, 





1Bowditch, 1900, p. 152. 


560 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


we should find the same head-elements in Glyph C of the Supplementary Series in 
each of the above pairs, because each pair records the same day. 

In these 11 pairs, however, the head-elements of Glyph C are effaced or wanting 
in one member of 4 different pairs (Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 9 above), which leaves but 7 
upon which we can base our comparisons. 

In figure 80 the head-elements in Glyph C in these seven pairs are shown, the 
two in Pair 3 in aand J, the two in Pair 41nc and d, the three in Triplet 5 ine, f, and g, 
the two in Pair 6, in / and 7, the two in Pair 8 inj and k, the two in Pair 10 in / and 
m, and the two in Pair 11 in mando. Of these, the heads of 5 pairs agree perfectly, 
Pair 10 from Naranjo and Quirigua (figure 80, / and m) both having the sign for 
God M;; Pair 3, both from Piedras Negras (figure 80, a and b), both having the head 
of God A, Pair 4 both from the same monument, Stela 11 at Yaxchilan (figure 80, 
c and d) both having the head of a youthful deity, probably God E, Pair 11 from 
Quirigua and Copan (figure 80, ” and o) both having the head of God A again, 
Pair 8, from Naranjo and Quirigua (figure 80, 7 and k), both having the head of God 
A again. 


FBO QUee 
) 2) &@ UZ 


te Ee aa ee eee eee 











Fic. 80.— Head-elements, or name-glyphs of deities in Glyphs C of Supplementary Series, 
which accompany the same Initial Series: a, 5, Piedras Negras, Stele 1 and 3 
(9.12.2.0.16); c, d, Yaxchilan, Stela 11 (9.16.1.0.0); ¢, f, g, Yaxchilan, Stela 1, 
Quirigua, Stela F Copan, Stela N (9.16.10.0.0); h, 1, Naranjo, Stele 24 and 29 
(9.12.10.5.12); 7, k, Naranjo, Stela 13, Quirigua, Zodbmorph B (9.17.10.0.0); J, m, 
Naranjo, Stela 8, Quirigua, Stela I (9.18.10.0.0); , 0, Quirigua, Stela J, Copan, 
Stela M (9.16.5.0.0). 


The other two, Pair 6 and Triplet 5, show a disagreement in this element. 
The first member of Pair 6, Stela 24, at Naranjo has the sign of God M (figure 80, h) 
and the second member, Stela 29 at Naranjo (figure 80, 2), the head of God E, a 
clear contradiction. 

Triplet 6 has two of its three members in agreement, Stela 1 at Yaxchilan and 
Stela N at Copan both having the sign of God M again (figure 80, e¢ and g); the third 
member, however, Stela F at Quirigua (figure 80, f) is aberrant, having the head 
of God E. 

The disagreements in the last two cases are so positive that in spite of the 
satisfactory agreements in the other five, it is probable that the day could not have 
been the period presided over by these deities, and that in this respect at least, 
they differ from the Aztec Nine Lords of the Night. 

Another possibility is that this deity in Glyph C may have presided over the 
corresponding lunar month, although, if so, the series cut across the 5- or 6-month 
lunar periods, because we find different deity heads associated with the same bar- 
and-dot coefficients, as for example in figure 79,7 and k, where the bar-and-dot 
coefficients are both 2, but the head in 7 is the head of God A, and that in k is the 
head of the God with the cruller ornament, possibly God K; or again in figure 79, 
n and o, where the bar-and-dot coefficients are both 5, but the head in 7 is that of 
an unknown god (head-variant for the number 6), and the corresponding element 


in 0, the sign for God M. 


THE SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES. 561 


Finally, it is even possible that these deities presided over still longer periods 
like the lunar groups of 177, 178, or 148 days. In this connection, R. K. Morley 
has recently called the writer’s attention to a significant characteristic of the 
Glyphs C in Pair 6 and Triplet 5, the two aberrant groups above. The coefficients 
of Glyph C in Pair 6 are 1 (Naranjo, Stela 24) and 6 (Naranjo, Stela 29), and in 
Triplet 5 they are again 1 (Yaxchilan, Stela 1 and Copan, Stela N) and 6 (Quirigua, 
Stela F). In other words, where the heads in Glyph C differ for Supplementary 
Series accompanying the same Initial Series, the corresponding coefficients—in the 
only five examples available for comparison—are either 1 or 6. The most obvious 
explanation of this phenomenon is that these differing deities presided over the 
larger lunar periods of which the coefhcients of Glyph C denote the subdivisions, 
that 1s, over the periods of 177, 178, or 148 days, if we may follow the parallel 
afforded by pages 51 to 58 of the Dresden Codex. 

This explains why these deities could differ, and yet belong to Supplementary 
Series accompanying the same Initial Series, since under this explanation the head 
of God E in Pair 6 (Naranjo, Stela 29) with its coefficient of 6 indicates that God E 
was the deity who presided over the lunar period of 6 months ending on the day 
g.12.10.5.12 (Initial Series of Stela 29), and the sign of God M (Naranjo, Stela 24) 
with its coefficient of 1 indicates that God M was the deity who would preside over 
the following lunar period of 5 or 6 months, which began on the same day. 

Again, in the case of Triplet 6, the head of God E (Quirigua, Stela F) with its 
coefhicient of 6 would indicate that God E presided over the lunar period of 6 months 
ending on the day 9.16.10.0.0 (Initial Series of Stela F), and the signs for God M 
(Yaxchilan, Stela 1, and Copan, Stela N) with their coefficients of 1 would indi- 
cate that God M presided over the following lunar period of 5 or 6 months, which 
began on the same day. 

These two groups, comprising five examples in all, are, of course, too insufficient 
to establish this point, but Morley's hypothesis here, that the deities shown in 
Glyph C presided over the longer lunar periods of 177, 178, or 148 days as the case 
might be, satisfactorily explains both the agreements and the disagreements ob- 
served in this element of Glyph C, and fits the archeological evidence better than 
the day or lunar month hypotheses. On the basis of this assumption the deities 
indicated by this element in Glyph C might possibly be called Eclipse Gods, since 
the eclipse phenomenon would appear to be associated with these 5-month and 6- 
month lunar groups. 

It would be premature to accept this hypothesis as proved, but the important 
fact in connection with this element now is that in it we probably have the sign of 
the deity who presided over the period in which the accompanying Initial Series 
date fell, hardly the day, or the lunar month, but more probably one of these 
larger lunar groups, or even some as yet unknown period. 

Returning to the Supplementary Series, the next sign, Glyph D (see figure 79, 
q-v), is the fourth from the left and immediately precedes Glyph C. It only occurs 
in about half of the texts under observation and therefore could hardly have been 
essential to the meaning of the count. 

When present, however, it is extremely constant, being composed of 4 elements, 
as follows: 

1. A hand always present and never changing in form. 

2. A variant of the moon-sign, always present and never changing in form. (Note 
that these two elements of Glyph D are identical with the corresponding ele- 
ments in Glyph C.) ; 

3. A bar-and-dot coefficient varying from 2 to 19 inclusive and no coefficient at 
all, which is probably to be interpreted as I, 

4. A subfix, probably unessential, 


562 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Since the first two elements are identical with two of the elements of Glyph C, 
and because, when present, Glyph D always immediately precedes Glyph C, it 
seems reasonable to infer that the two characters are closely connected in meaning. 

R. K. Morley has pointed out by far the most important characteristic of this 
glyph, namely, that when Glyphs E and D both occur in the same text, as 1s fre- 
quently the case, Glyph D never has a coeficient and Glyph E always has one. 
The latter may be only 1, it is true, as on Stela 8 at Naranjo, but wherever Glyphs 
E and D are both present the latter never has a coefhicient. 

This characteristic very strongly suggests that Glyph D contains within itself 
the data for Glyph E also, that is, that Glyph D could be expanded into Glyphs D 
and E at will by attaching its coefficient to Glyph E, and either omitting Glyph D 
altogether or recording it without a coefhicient. This may possibly explain why 
Glyph E is present only in 30 per cent. of the texts under observation. When it was 
desired to record them both, however, perhaps to fill in a space on the monument, 
then Glyph D was recorded without a coefficient, its coefficient going over to Glyph 
E. In fact, whatever these two glyphs may mean, it is evident that they are very 
closely connected, if not indeed actually synonyms, since we get all three com- 
binations of them possible: (1) Glyph D by itself; (2) Glyph E by itself; and (3) 
both together; but what we never get is D with a coefficient when E 1s present. 

Glyph E (figure 79, w—b’), as the writer has already shown,! is probably reduci- 
ble to a number of days. It is composed of but two constant elements, the moon- 
sign (the same variant as in Glyph A) and a series of numerical coefficients ranging 
from ito1g. Since the variant of the moon-sign is the same as in Glyph A, it must 
have a numerical value of 20, and since the coefhicients attached to it are always 
either to the left or above (see figure 79, w—b’) they are doubtless to be regarded as 
multipliers, so that the glyph can stand for as low as 20 days (1. ¢., I X 20) or as 
high as 380 days (i. ¢., 19 X 20). Furthermore, at Yaxchilan it is sometimes modi- 
fied by the same superfix as the cycle-sign is in the great-cycle glyph, that is to say, 
by an element that multiplies it by 20, making it 400.2 And in one case at least 
(Stela 24 at Naranjo) this is modified by a bar-and-dot coefficient on its left as high 
as 18, making it equal to 7,200 days (1. ¢., 18 X 400) under this assumption, and with 
7,600 days (1. ¢., 19 X 400) as its possible maximum. 

However probable it now appears that Glyphs D and E are synonymous and 
that both may be reduced to a number of days, we are yet entirely in the dark as to 
what determined the number of days they appear to record. Any suggestion that 
might be brought forward at this time would be purely speculative, but in closing 
the presentation of these two glyphs the writer wishes to note that he regards it 
as highly probable that this number has something to do with the accompanying 
Initial Series in each case, possibly indicating the distance therefrom, either before 
or after some specific observed eclipse phenomenon. 

We come next to the last glyph of the Supplementary Series, Glyph X (see 
figure 79, c’-j’) which is the sixth character from the left or the third from the 
right. ‘This sign is the least understood of all the characters of the Supplementary 
Series, 1s the most variable of all (hence its name Glyph X), and in importance 
ranks with Glyphs A and C. In the other glyphs of this count we have been able 
to establish essential elements or characteristics which remain constant, no matter 
through what changes the accompanying coefhcients may pass. But in Glyph X 
for the first time we reach a glyph which possesses no element common to all of its 
examples, but on the contrary which passes through a number of changes. Happily 
it appears possible to classify these, at least roughly. The commonest element in 





1Morley, 1916, pp. 384-387. 2Tbid, 1915, pp. 117-119. 


THE SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES. 563 


Glyph (——_—) X is a pair of crossed human legs without the upper part of the 
body tier ] (see figure 79, c’—e’). In most cases these are combined 
with = SE ~+the moon-sign (figure 79, c’ and d’), but in a few cases with 
heads (figure 79, e’) or other forms. This pair of legs occurs in 11 out of the 61 
cases where Glyph X is recognizable, or 18 per cent. 

The next commonest form of Glyph X is the head of God C, sometimes found 
with a coefficient of 0 (figure 79, f’), sometimes with a coefficient of 1 (figure 79, g’), 
sometimes with a coefficient of 3 (figure 79, h’), and sometimes with no coefficient 


at all. More rarely still we find other grotesque heads with coefficients of o (figure 


79, 1’) and sometimes scattering geometric forms such as figure 79, 7’. 


The presence of the moon-sign not infrequently might indicate that Glyph X 
declared the accompanying phase of the moon in each Supplementary Series, a not 
unlikely part of the record in any lunar count. Or again, it may denote special 
planets or configurations which were prominent at the time of the accompanying 
Initial Series date; but here again we are as yet in the dark. 

Enough has been determined about the Supplementary Series, however, to 
establish beyond all doubt that it is primarily a lunar count, and probably that it 
represents an attempt to arrange groups of complete lunar revolutions so as to coin- 
cide with possible recurrences of some eclipse phenomenon, either solar or lunar, 
and possibly even of both. 

In collaboration with R. K. Morley and Guthe, the writer has formulated the 
following points which it appears safe to accept as more or less surely established 
in regard to this count: 


1. The Supplementary Series is a lunar count. 

2. It appears to be an attempt to arrange a series of 29 and 30 day months, so as to 
make the diurnal calendar (7. ¢., the Long Count) measure the actual lunations without the 
resulting remainders reaching a whole day in any case. 

3. Glyph C appears to show some further arrangement, probably of the months 
expressed by Glyph A, denoted by coefficients of from 1 to 6, inclusive. 

4. The Dresden Codex, (pp. 51-58) shows a lunar count of 29 and 30 day months 
arranged in groups of 6 months of 177 days each, or more rarely of 178 days each, and 
occasionally groups of 5 months of 148 days each. 

5. It seems reasonable to infer from points 1 to 4 that the Supplementary Series in 
the inscriptions and pages 51 to 58 of the Dresden Codex treat not only of the same subject, 
but also are constructed according to the same general plan. 

6. This peculiar 6-5 grouping of the 29 and 30 day months is probably caused by the 
attempt to record or predict solar or lunar eclipses, or possibly even both. (See Meinshau- 
sen, 1913.) 

7. The arrangement used in the Dresden Codex appears to have been followed, possi- 
bly with minor variations, in the inscriptions as well. Although all attempts to fit the 
former to the latter unchanged have failed, it seems necessary to believe that the same 
general scheme prevailed in both, because of the internal evidence supplied by the Supple- 
mentary Series themselves. neers ea 

8. Finally, in attempting to ascertain the system used in the inscriptions, the most 
promising line of investigation appears to be to try first to discover the system followed in 
any one city (Quirigua and Piedras Negras, because of the regularity of the hotun-markers, 
are the best adapted for this purpose) from the internal evidence of its own inscriptions 
alone, since it is already apparent that the Supplementary Series are by no means con- 
structed according to the same universal system as are the Initial Series. That such 
should be true should not be wondered at, when it is considered that it is a valiant attempt 
to correlate two incommensurable time periods, and further, that the method of correlation 
may have been influenced by the eclipses visible at any one point. 


: aes ee 
tel ner porary 
wee saroteorw: 5 RY ee 





APPENDIX VII. 
THE HOTUN. 


Probably no single phase of the Maya inscriptions is more noteworthy than 
that of the periodicity of the monuments upon which they are engraved, and cer- 
tainly no other characteristic of the monuments themselves is of greater importance 
in determining their function or the nature of the phenomena which regulated the 
dates of their erection. While this periodicity is not characteristic of the earliest 
Maya monuments, as we shall presently see, it is encountered, nevertheless, far back 
in the Old Empire, and even by the early part of Cycle 9, especially at Copan, it had 
become the controlling factor in the erection of the monuments, and so continued 
down to the very end of the New Empire, more than 13 centuries later.1 The 
writer's attention was first attracted to this phenomenon in 1907 in connection with 
his first work on the Supplementary Series, during the course of which he discovered 
that the monuments at Quirigua were erected at intervals of every 1,800 days. 

Seler had noted this condition at the same city (where it is most apparent) as 
early as 1899,” although when the writer made his discovery he was unaware of 
Seler’s work; and in 1910, Bowditch made this phenomenon the subject of a special 
appendix in his The Numeration, Calendar Systems, and Astronomical Knowledge of 
the Mayas,* in which he reaches the following conclusion: 

“It might be deduced from this table [7. e., a table showing katun, lahuntun, and hotun- 
endings on the monuments] that in early times the Mayas marked the lapse of each katun 
by some kind of stone record, as Bishop Landa and others report, and that, as time ran on, 
they made this record more often, perhaps at the end of each half-katun, and that in still 
later times the record was made at the end of each quarter-katun. But as the early monu- 
ments are probably more defaced than the later ones, and as a large number of monuments 
are found the glyphs of which are too much worn to be identified, and as undoubtedly there 


are many monuments yet to be discovered, it is not at all improbable that the quarter- 
katuns were recorded from the beginning.’”4 











ee) 


Fic. 81.—Glyph for the hotun: a, Piedras Negras, Stela 12; b, Quirigua, Stela C; c, Copan, Stela 1; d, Piedra F 
Negras, Lintel 2; ¢, Piedras Negras, Stela 22; f, Piedras Negras, Stela 36; g, Yaxchilan, Altar 9 | 
h, Quirigua, Stela K; 7, Quirigua, Stela J; 7, Copan, Stela I; k, Piedras Negras, Stela 6; /, Piedras’ 
Negras, Stela 25; m, Quirigua, Stela H; n, Piedras Negras, Stela 16; 0, Yaxchilan, Lintel 3; p, Pie- 
dras Negras, Stela 9; g, Copan, East Altar of Stela 5; r, Quirigua, Zodmorph G; s, Quirigua, 
Stela D. 


1This is under the writer’s correlation of Maya and Christian chronology; under Goodman’s it would only be 
two and a half centuries less, however. (See Appendix II.) 

2Seler, 1899, pp. (670)-(738); republished in Seler, 1902-1908, vol. 1, pp. 712-836. 

3Bowditch, 1910, Appendix VIII, pp. 310-318. 4Tbid., pp. 310-311. 565 





566 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


In 1910 the writer first identified the glyph for this 1,800-day period’ (see figure 
81), and during the field seasons of 1912, 1913, 1914, and 1915 increasing evidence 
as to the widespread prevalence of this custom was accumulated, particularly in 
1914 and 1915, during the course of trips to the Peten region of Guatemala, where 
this phenomenon was noted in 1914 at Naranjo, Ucanal, Ixkun, Seibal, Aguas 
Calientes, Altar de Sacrificios, E] Pabellén, and Piedras Negras, and traces of it at 
Tikal and Yaxchilan, and in 1915 at Cancuen, Itsimte, Flores, Nakum, Benque 
Viejo, and La Honradez? (see plate 1). | 

In 1915, at the meeting of the Nineteenth International Congress of Ameri- 
canists in Washington, these results were summarized in a paper entitled: “The 
hotun as the principal chronological unit of the Old Maya Empire; * where the 
following thesis was presented: 

“The Maya monuments, and especially those of the stela type, seem to have been 
used, perhaps primarily, to mark the passage of time, stele being erected at intervals of 


every hotun (1,800 days), or multiples thereof, such as every lahuntun (3,600 days), or 
katun (7,200 days), throughout the Old Empire, approximately 200 to 600 A. D.’”4 


In this paper, also, the name hotwn® was suggested for the 1,800-day period, 
and lahuntun for the 3,600-day period on the following etymological grounds: 
The Maya called their 360-day period tun, and their 7,200-day period (1.e. 20 X 
360) katun, the latter probably being a contraction for kaltun, kal being the Maya 
for 20, and kaltun, therefore, 20 tuns. Since ho means 5 in Maya, and Jahun Io, on 
the basis of the above parallel the writer suggested hotun and lahuntun as names for 
the periods of 1,800 days and 3,600 days respectively.© ‘The glyph for the former, 
as noted above, is shown in figure 81, the winged-Cauac element representing the tun, 
the bar above 5, and the superfix or prefix having the value of “end of” or “close 
of.” The whole glyph, therefore, may be read as “end of 5 tuns”’ or “end of ahotun.”’ 








Fic. 82.—Glyph for the lahuntun: a, Naranjo, Stela 31; b, Naranjo, Stela 22; c, Naranjo, Stela 24; d, Tikal, 
Temple III; ¢, Tikal, Temple I; f, Seibal, Stela 7; g, Naranjo, Stela 13; h, Copan, Stela F; 7, Naranjo, Stela 
12; 7, Quirigua, Stela F; &, Tikal, Structure 10; /, Piedras Negras, Stela 4; m, Copan, Altar H’; n, Copan, 
Stela 6; 0, Palenque, Temple of the Inscriptions; ~, Copan, Stela 15; g, Copan, Stela P; 7, Quirigua, Stela F; 
5, Copan, Stela J; 4, Copan, Stela A. 


The glyph for the lahuntun (see figure 82) was first identified by Goodman: 


“This glyph occurs immediately after a date that is the beginning of a 1oth ahau [17. ¢., 
the end of a roth tun]. The first character is the sign commonly employed, by itself, to 
denote that circumstance. It is a modification of the quadrated sign for 20 which forms 
its characteristic feature. There are many variants of it—in fact, I doubt if it ever occurs 
twice in the same shape; but, whatever the variation, it never fails to indicate a roth ahau, 
or an even 10 ahau |1. ¢., 10-tun] reckoning.’”” 





Bowditch calls this interpretation doubtful, on the ground that the element 
immediately above the quadrated sign for 20, or better, sign for zero, is sometimes 5, 





‘Although the writer first identified this glyph in 1910, and described it in 1911, owing to his frequent absences 
from the country, publication thereof was delayed until 4 years later. (See Morley, 1915, p. 166 and fig. 67.) 

*Morley, 19154, pp. 343-346. 3Tbid., 19170. 4Tbid., p. 201. 

’This name had been previously suggested in ibid., 1915, p. 166. 

®Morley, 1917), pp. 196 and 197. 7Goodman, 1897, p. 99. 


THE HOTUN. BOF 


sometimes I0, and sometimes I5, 7. ¢., one, two, or three bars.! It is true that this 
element erodes down, so that frequently it resembles one or other of these three 
numbers (see figure 82, a, h, 0, and t), but when perfect it practically always has 
interior decorations, which show that it is not Io or 15 and probably not 5 (see 
figure 82, b-g, i-n, p-r). The best explanation for this element would seem to be 
that it cuts the zero-element in half, as it always does, and cutting any whole period in 
half, 1. ¢., one whose coeficient was zero, in the Maya vigesimal system gave 10 units 
of the next lower order in all places save periods of the third order, where it gave 9. 

As if in support of this morphology for the lahuntun-sign, we find it applied 
only once to a katun-sign (see figure 82, 0), where it accompanies the date 9.10.0.0.0 
in the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque. But Katun 10 is precisely the only 
katun to which it could be applied and still retain the essence of the meaning sug- 
gested for it here, 1. ¢., as indicating half of the period next higher, since Katun Io is 
exactly half of a cycle. However, no matter how this sign acquired its meaning, 
Goodman correctly identified it, as the writer was able to prove in 1915, and Bow- 
ditch’s objection may doubtless be disregarded. 

Field work subsequent to the publication of the above paper on the hotun, 
moreover, has further corroborated the writer’s earlier conclusions. Former pre- 
valence of this custom was established at Uaxactun in 1916,’ at Los Higos in 1917,° 
and even in the New Empire at Tuluum and Chichen Itza in 1918.4 In{short, since 
the hotun-glyph was first identified in 1910, it has become increasingly evident that 
this period, or its second or fourth multiple (7. ¢., the lahuntun and katun), was the 
controlling factor in determining upon what dates the Maya erected their monu- 
ments throughout both the Old and the New Empire. 

In outlining the history of this practice let us seek its origin first, then trace 
its development during the Old Empire, and finally follow it north into Yucatan, 
and down to the period of the Spanish Conquest. For the Old Empire, our sources 
are exclusively archzologic, but when we come to the New Empire we will find 
documentary evidence bearing directly upon this custom in both the Spanish and 
native sources. 

It has been stated in Chapter V that the three earliest dated objects known, the 
Tuxtla Statuette, the Leyden Plate, and Stela 9 at Uaxactun, and possibly even 
Stela 5 at the same site, 8.6.2.4.17, 8.14.3.1.12, 8.14.10.13.15, and 8.15.10.3.12 (?) 
respectively, show no traces of this custom. From which it appears probable that 
the first monuments were not erected at the hotun-endings, but that some other 
factor, possibly an actual historic event or astronomic phenomenon, gave rise to 
their manufacture and determined the dates recorded upon them. In this con- 
nection also it should be noted that none of these four texts have Supplementary 
Series accompanying their respective Initial Series, at least in a recognizable form. 
That is, it appears probable that the 29 or 30 day lunar month and the eclipse 
features were not added to this type of Maya record until some time after their 
magnificent chronological system had been devised. 

The earliest possible occurrence of a period-ending date is on Stela 8 at Tikal, 
where the writer believes he may have found the lahuntun-ending 9.0.10.0.0, and 
the earliest certain example is on Stela 24 at Copan, 9.2.10.0.0, 40 years later. The 
earliest possible occurrence of a katun-ending 1s on Stela 9 at ‘Tikal, where the writer 
believes he may have found the katun-ending 9.2.0.0.0, and the earliest certain 
occurrence is on Stela 7 at Copan, 9.9.0.0.0, 140 years later. Finally, the earliest 
possible occurrence of a first or third hotun-ending 1s on Stela 16 at Copan, 9.4.15.0.0 
(very doubtful), and the earliest certain occurrence Is on Stela 25 at Piedras Negras, 
9.8.15.0.0, 80 years later. Even eliminating these doubtful earlier examples, it is 








1Bowditch, 1910, p. 247. 2Morley, 19164, pp. 339-341. 8Tbid., 1917¢, pp.288, 289. ‘Tbid., 1918a, p. 274. 


568 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


clear that the custom began not later than the third lahuntun of Cycle 9 (Copan, 
Stela 24), and admitting them, as early as the first lahuntun of Cycle 9 (Tikal, 
Stela 8); in other words, we get our first traces of it some 140 or 160 years after the 
earliest stela known was erected (Uaxactun, Stela 9). 

On the basis of the evidence now available, Stela 8 at Tikal (9.0.10.0.0), Stelz 
20, 24, 15; and g at Copan (9.1.10.0.0, 9.2.10.0.0, 9.4.10.0.0, and 9.6. 10.0.0 respec- 
tively), it appears as though the lahuntun-endings were actually commemorated in 
this way before the katun-endings, although the latter 1s much the more important 
period of the two. 

This 1s so contrary to the logical order for this custom to have followed in its 
development, 7. ¢., first the katuns, then the half-katuns (the lahuntuns), and finally 
the quarter-katuns (the hotuns), that even in spite of the above evidence to the 
contrary, the writer feels that at first monuments were only erected at the katun- 
endings; that is to say, as first worked out, possibly during the close of Cycle 8, at 
Tikal, the katun-endings (1. ¢., once every 20 years) were the only times at which 
stele were erected. Jater, as the Maya became more prosperous, in a second 
stage (the first at Copan), they were able to erect the stele on lahuntun-endings 
as well (7. e., once every ten years), and finally, toward the close of the Early 
Period (9.8.15.0.0), they became sufficiently prosperous to be able to erect them 
on the first and third hotun-endings as well (1. ¢., once every 5 years). This 
surely is the logical order of development, and the fact that the only evidence 
available tends to indicate the priority of the lahuntun over the katun as the 
period first chosen for this purpose, the writer believes is due to the chance survival 
of these few earliest lahuntun-markers and the chance destruction or non-recovery 
of the earliest katun-markers, rather than to any actual priority of the former 
over the latter. Bowditch’s conclusion (see page 565) that the quarter-katuns 
were probably marked from the first appears to the writer incorrect. He believes 
the evidence on this point at least 1s sufficient to show that the hotun-endings 
were not marked until some time after the katun and lahuntun-endings—in fact, 
until toward the close of the Early Period. 

The custom, moreover, appears to have varied in different cities at the same 
time, as the following brief synopsis of the dates at each will indicate: 

Tikal——Even admitting the accuracy of the readings suggested here for 
Stela 8 and 9, after 9.2.0.0.0 (Stela 9) we do not get another hotun-marker until 
9.14.0.0.0, 240 years later (Stela 16), and after Stela 16 not another until 10.2.0.0.0, 
160 years later (Stela 11); that is, out of the 17 sculptured stelz at this site, only 2, 
or possibly 4, are hotun-markers. But as already noted in Chapter V, there are 51 
plain stelz at Tikal, which probably were painted, and possibly were period-ending 
markers, and if these were erected only at the lahuntun and katun-endings—and 
no first and third hotun-endings have yet been found here—they would largely fill 
this gap, otherwise inexplicable in such an important site as Tikal, no less than 
the largest city of the Old Empire, and indeed of the whole Maya civilization. 

Copan.—The situation here has been fully explained in Chapters II, III, and 
IV. The earliest stele are lahuntun-markers and toward the close of the Early 
Period katun, first and third hotun-markers appear. ‘There are several lacunz in 
the sequence of the monuments at Copan, which it has been shown were probably 
coincidental with corresponding periods of building activity and temple construction. 

Piedras Negras.—This city contains one of the two best series of hotun-markers 
known. Here for a period of nearly 2 centuries probably not a hotun-ending passed 
without the erection of a corresponding monument to commemorate the event. 
This is shown graphically in figure 83, where the map of the city appears with a 
chronological diagram below indicating the dates of the different monuments, 


THE HOTUN. 569 


» Whevdp We wa 
Og AW 7 
RNY yy Whi mw LE: 
w w x" 


7 


Mh a 
\w W oy uA SS) Ww 


(e 'y uc : 


‘= DATED MONUMENTS 

© UNDATED MONUMENTS 

fmm STRUCTURES bu] 

2 _— ARABIC NUMERALS, MONUMENTS ~~ 

IY ROMAN NUMERALS, STRUCTURES NS 

NN Bi 3 ms 
Sbgen 


2° 


AWAY 


ths 


My 
Gi 


S47 
ee Mesa 


3 
= 


WW wn 


Mt, yay WS 


My 
im ws we | w ie 


a ® 
o ALS € 
gt. MP We in 

“ills x 


U7 
as Mr 


& 


Z 
Za 


i 


Wyn S 
a "a mp WW « 
le 7 4 
“2, gm mn fis 


\y 
Ss 


us 
aT 


iy) 








fll\ 


j ¢ 
7 MN 
True 


FG Z / 
My) I, — 
By Zz 


AN 








Fic. 83.— Map of Piedras Negras, Guatemala, showing location of the dated 











and the undated monuments. cients: Hotuns. 
each line corresponding to a hotun-ending. When there is a Early Period. 
black square and a number in the first column, the number _ | 75" . Sao 
indicates the name of the stela, or in one or two cases altar, ae ee 
which records the corresponding hotun-ending. If the first 9. 9.10.0.0 
column is empty this indicates that no monument hat yet Meee 
been found recording this particular hotun-ending. In such Middle Period 


cases, however, it should be noted that there are other monu- | 318 
ments at the city, the dates of which have not yet been deci- 
phered, shown as white squares on the map in figure 83, which 
in all probability fill these lacunae. There are 37 stele and 2 
large altars at Piedras Negras, the dates of 23 of which, or | 35# 


1G, 5-0-6 
10.10. 
PLOe IE: 


le) 
ie) 


DO OvOLO OrO"0 0 OOO 0 0-6 610 0 6 < 


about 60 per cens., have been deciphered; and since all of the ve ae 

deciphered monuments have been found to be hotun-markers, 12. 5 

it appears highly probable that the remaining 16 when deci- ; 12.10 
a 


phered will be found to fill some of these lacune. ‘The ear- ee 
liest date at Piedras Negras is 9.8.15.0.0 (Stela 25) and the om 
latest 9.18.5.0.0 (Stela 12). Stylistically considered also, 4a 


_ 

NS 

_ 

wm 
©C2000000000000000 


Sy 
nll 
(eo) 


Stela 25 is one of the earliest, if not the very earliest monu- = ays 
ment, and Stela 12 is surely the latest, so that it is reasonably 5a 14. 5 
safe to regard most, if not all, of the other monuments as fall- Ph 
ing between these two limits. There are, moreover, just 39 ho- | / a ie 
tuns between and including these two dates, and we have seen cay Pane: 
that there is a total of just 39 monuments known here. ‘These om Tow 6.006 
results are so close and satisfactory that the writer haslittle hesi- | 10" 15 .10.0.0 
° . : Py, 25.0: 
tancy in concluding that the as yet undated monuments at this | ,,, = pe 
site will eventually be found to fill most if not allof theselacunz. | 22= 16. 5.0.0 
Naranjo.—At this city there is evidence that at first only ; eee 
. 16m 16.15.0.0 
the katun and lahuntun-endings were marked, 9.10.0.0.0 (reused | 49 BD ee 
17. 5.0.0 
17.10.0.0 
17.15.0.0 
I4@ 18. 0.0.0 
128 itso Lynete 


570 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


lintel in the Hieroglyphic Stairway) and 9.10.10.0.0 (the Hieroglyphic Stairway). 
In 9.13.15.0.0 (Stela 21) and again in 9.14.15.0.0 (Stela 18), however, third hotun- 
endings were recorded, but this practice does not appear to have continued, as the 
closing group of stelz were all erected on lahuntun or katun-endings again, 9.17.10.0.0 
(Stele 13 and 19), 9.18.0.0.0 (Stela 14), 9.18.10.0.0 (Stele 8 and 12), 9.19.0.0.0 
(Stela 7 and 10), and 9.19.10.0.0 (Stela 32). However, there are 32 sculptured 
stelz at this site, the dates of only about half of which have been deciphered, so 
that some of the undeciphered monuments probably fll the existing lacune in 
the series of hotun-markers there. 

Palenque.—The evidence here is very limited. There is only one stela known 
and a few wall tablets. As far as they go, however, these conform with this prac- 
tice: 9.10.10.0.0 (Temple of the Sun), 9.11.0.0.0 (Palace Group and a small slab of 
unknown provenance), and g.13.0.0.0 (Temples of the Inscriptions and Foliated 
Cross, and the stela in front of the Temple of the Cross). 








— 


a (ONE HALF MILE FROM 
s$ MAIN GROVE) 


B& DATED MONUMENTS 

| O UNDATED MONUMENTS 

@es STRUCTURES 

CAPITAL LETTERS MONUMENTS 

ARABIC NUMERALS STRUCTURES 
SCALE IN Fr. 

om wo 200300 400 











Fic. 84.— Map of Quirigua, Guatemala, showing location of the dated and the undated monuments. 


Yaxchilan.—The evidence at this site is the most unsatis- | Monu- 








factory of all, though even here traces of the custom appear. | ments. ee 
Of the 20 stelz, only one records a hotun-ending, 9.16.10.0.0 Mi | 9:46. 0.086 
(Stela 1). An altar was dedicated in 9.15.15.0.0, and two lin- Gsrgh Pace 
tels in 9.16.5.0.0 (Lintel 3) and 9.17.0.0.0 (Lintel 31). Many 9.15. §.0.0 
of the dates here have not been deciphered, and many more, B3 15 t0.c 
particularly on the lintels, which were the commonest media ae aves aan 
for hieroglyphic treatment at Yaxchilan, present odd dates at Jm| 9.16. 5.0.0 
the ends of no periods in the Long Count, and thus possibly Fl | 9.16.10.0.0 
refer to historic or astronomic events. we ae oe 
Nakum.— There are only 3 sculptured stelz at this site, |A&C@| 9.17. 0.0.0 
but each one of these conforms to this custom: 9.17.0.0.0 (Stela Bu | 9.17.10.0.0 
U), 9.19.10.0.0 (Stela C), and 10.1.0.0.0 (Stela D). There are Aa eae a 
12 other plain stela here, and assuming that they were either Pm] 9.18. 5.0.0 
lahuntun or katun-markers like the 3 sculptured ones, and Te | 9.18.10.0.0 
that 10.1.0.0.0 is the latest date, these would carry the series of nae eae oe 


period-markers at this site back to 9.14.0.0.0 for its beginning. 


THE HOTUN. ort 


Quirigua.—The series of hotun-markers at this site is the most satisfactory in 
the Old Empire, for there is not a single gap after the erection of the first stela in 
g.15.15.0.0 (Stela S) down to and including the last hotun-ending recorded here, 
g.19.0.0.0 (Structure 1). This is shown graphically in figure 84, where a map of the 
city appears with a chronological diagram below giving the dates of the different 
monuments after the same scheme as in figure 83. It will be noticed in figure 84 
that there are no undated stelz at Quirigua, and only 4 undated altars, N, L, Q, 
and R, the latter being small and relatively unimportant. The earliest hotun- 
ending 1 is 9.15.0.0.0 (Altar M) and the next 9.15.15.0.0 (Stela S), after which the 
series continues without a single break for 65 years down to and including 9.19.0.0.0 
the last date at Quirigua (Structure 1), one hotun, namely that ending in 9.17.5.0.0, 
being commemorated by two monuments (eels A and C). This is the most 
satisfactory sequence of all, so much so, in fact, that before the discovery of the last 
monument at Quirigua, Stela S, in 1913, the writer had predicted that if another 
monument were found there it would record either of the hotun-endings 9.15.15.0.0, 
Or 9.19.0.0.0, 1.¢., the two open ends of the sequence at that time. Subsequently 
‘Mr. M. D. Landry, of the United Fruit Company, found Stela S a kilometer south- 
west of the main group, and this proved to record the date 9.15.15.0.0, one of the 
two which had been predicted for it. 

Uaxactun.—Of the 11 sculptured stela known at this site, at least 3 record 
katun-endings, 9.14.0.0.0 (?) (Stela 1), 9.16.0.0.0 (Stela 2), and 9.19.0.0.0 (Stela 7). 
There are other early monuments here, 8.14.10.13.15 (Stela 9), 8.15.10.3.12 (?) 
tela .£)<0-3.13.010 (Stela 3), and 9.8.6.7.3 (?) (Stela 6), however, which do not 
conform to this practice, and 4 others euh are undecipherable (Stele 4, 8, 10, 
and II). 

Yaxha.—Only one monument has been dated at this site (Stela 6), and that 
very doubtfully as 9.11.5.0.0. 

La Honradez.—The to sculptured stele here are very much effaced, owing 
to the inferior quality of the limestone upon which they were carved. Only one 
has been surely dated, but it records the katun-ending, 9.17.0.0.0 (Stela 7). Other 
doubtfully deciphered monuments here are 9.17.10.0.0 (?) (Stela 6), 9.18.0.0.0 (?) 
(Stela 5), and 9.18.10.0.0 (1) (Stela 4), although there is not much doubt as to the 
dates of the last two. The latest monument at this site on stylistic grounds is 
Stela 4, and assuming that the 6 as yet undeciphered stele recorded lahuntun or 
katun-endings prior thereto—and no first or third hotun-endings have been found 
here—these would carry the series of monuments back to 9.14.0.0.0, 

Seibal.—The custom at this site appears to have been to commemorate only 
the lahuntun and katun-endings, no first or third hotun-endings having been found 
here. The following dates have been deciphered: 9.16.0.0.0 (Hieroglyphic Step), 
9.17.0.0.0 (Stela 6), 9.18.0.0.0 (Stela 12), 9.18.10.0.0 (Stela 7), 10.1.0.0.0 (Stelz 
8, 9, 10, 11), and 10.2.0.0.0 (Stela 1). The dates of Stelz 2, 3, 4, and 5 have not 
been deciphered yet; they may have marked some of the missing lahuntun-endings, 

Ixkun.—Only one monument has been surely dated at this site, 9.18.0.0.0 
(Stela 1), although the lahuntun-ending 9.18.10.0.0 is probably recorded on Stela 5. 
There is a third monument here (Stela 2), none of the dates of which, although per- 
fectly legible, appears to conform to this custom. 

Itsimte.—The dates of 4 monuments have been deciphered at this site, 2 surely 
and 2 doubtfully; all 4, however, conform to this custom, 9.14.0.0.0 (?) (Altar 1), 
g.14.10.0.0 (?) (Altar 2), 9.15.0.0.0 (Stela 5), and 9.15.10.0.0 (Stela 2). 

Altar de Sacrificios—El Pabellén.—Of the 4 decipherable monuments at these 
two sites, which are so near each other as to be really parts of the same center, 3 
record katun or lahuntun-endings, 9.10.0.0.0 (El Pabellon, Stela 1), 9.10.10.0.0 
(Altar de Sacrificios, Stela 4), and 9.14.0.0.0.0 (Altar de Sacrificios, Stela 7). 


572 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


The remaining sites each have one or two datable monuments only, but in 
every case these are found to conform with this practice. 


Tzendales. 9.13. 0.0.0 (Temple of the tablet). 

El Cayo. 9.17. 5.0.0 (?) (Stela 1). 

Los Higos. 9.17.10.0.0 (Stela 1). 

La Mar. 9.17.15.0.0 (Stela 1), 9.18.15.0.0 (Stela 2). 

Aguas Calientes. 9.18. 0.0.0 (Stela 1). 

Cancuen. 9.18. 0.0.0 (Stela 2), 9.18. 5.0.0 (Altar 2). 

Ucanal. 10. I. 0.0.0 (Stela 3). 

Benque Viejo. 10. 1. 0.0.0 (Stela 1). 

Flores. IO. I. 0.0.0 (Stela 1), 10. 2. 0.0.0 (Stela 2). 

Quen Santo. 10. 2. 5.0.0 (Stela 1), 10. 2.10.0.0 (Stela 2). 

Chichen Itza. 10. 2.10.0.0 (Temple of the Initial Series). 
85 86 









ies 


























( Wesel ® 
pa alin 
et a \ 


eve Xe WW 











87 


Walesa: 


Fic. 85.— Design and part of inscription on front of Stela 1 at Tuluum, Yucatan. 
Fic. 86.— Design and inscription on cliff at the Hunacab mouth of the Cave of Loltun, Yucatan. 
Fic. 87.— Inscription on front of lintel in the Temple of the Initial Series at Chichen Itza, Yucatan. 










It is apparent from the foregoing summary that this custom was practiced 
throughout the Old Empire, even those small sites which have only one or two 


THE HOTUN. 573 


monuments conforming to it. In some places, notably at Piedras Negras and 
Quirigua, the custom of marking every hotun-ending by the erection of a stela was 
rigidly adhered to, but more often only the lahuntun and katun-endings were thus 
commemorated, and in some places the custom even seems to have changed from 
time to time, as at Naranjo, for example. 

Turning next to the New Empire, we find not only archzologic evidence of the 
prevalence of this custom, both on the monuments and in the codices, but also 
direct documentary proof thereof in the post-conquest sources, Spanish as well as 
native. 

Mention has been made elsewhere that the contemporaneous date of the 
Chichen Itza lintel was originally assumed to have been declared by the Initial 
Series 10.2.9.1.9 on its under side, but that in 1918 the writer was able to show that 
it was declared by the Period Ending date on the front instead, which records the 
lahuntun-ending 10.2.10.0.0 2 Ahau 13 Chen.! This is shown in figure 87, where 
the inscription on the front of this lintel is represented. The first glyph, a1, is the 
lahuntun-sign, here shown in a very unusual manner. Instead of the regular 
lahuntun-sign (see figure 82), Al is composed of the “winged-Cauac” variant of 
the tun-sign with a coefficient of 10, making the whole glyph 10 tuns or a lahuntun. 
The last glyph on the front, 12, declares the day on which this lahuntun ended, 
namely, 2 Ahau, and the glyph just above, 11, the day of the Initial Series terminal 
date, 9 Muluc, 331 days earlier. a1, 12, therefore, may be interpreted as ‘‘un 10, 
ending on the day 2 Ahau,” which, in conjunction with the Initial Series on the 
under side, indicates that the lahuntun 2 Ahau here intended was 10.2.10.0.0 
2 Ahau 13 Chen, thus conforming to the regular practice. The Chichen Itza 
lintel is the earliest hotun-marker known in the New Empire. 

The next occurrence on a New Empire monument is Stela 1 at Tuluum (see 
figure 85). The contemporaneous date of this monument also was first thought 
to be declared by the Initial Series, which Howe correctly deciphered as 9.6.10.0.0 
8 Ahau 13 Pax.” In 1918, however, the writer found a missing fragment of this 
stela, giving a later Period Ending date, which, with other glyphs on the back (see 
figure 88, a and b), indicates that its contemporaneous date was the lahuntun- 
ending 10.6.10.0.0 7 Ahau 18 Yaxkin instead, exactly 1 cycle later than its Initial 
Series, and about 80 years later than the Chichen Itza lintel.? (Note the lahuntun- 
sign in figure 85 at Als, and in 88, b, at a2, and the day 7 Ahau in figure 85 at al6, 
in 88, a, at A2, and in 88, b, at al.) Thus the Tuluum stela is also seen to conform 
with this practice. 

We have already seen that Initial Series dating fell into disuse in the New 
Empire, being replaced by Period Ending dating. So it is not surprising to find our 
next example from the Cave of Loltun near the modern village of Oxkutzcab, 
northern Yucatan, recorded as a Period Ending date, a Katun 3 Ahau. On a 
vertical wall at the Hunacab entrance of this cave there is sculptured a large deity, 
ruler, priest, or warrior, 3 meters high, with a ceremonial staff in his right hand 
and a club (perhaps an atlatl or spear-thrower) in his left hand. (See figure 86.) 
Above and to the left is a panel of 3 glyph-blocks, the first of which is the day 3 
Ahau. The whole composition is doubtless to be interpreted as the ending of 
some Katun 3 Ahau, the anthropomorphic figure being the deity or ruler who 
presided over the particular katun recorded. 

Turning to the u kahlay katunob on page 503 we will see that in all probability 
this Katun 3 Ahau was the one which ended in 1379 A. D., that is, the only one after 
the end of the League of Mayapan, corresponding to ‘he Initial Series 12.1.0.0.0 


1Morley, 19184, p. 274. 2Howe, IQII, p. 546. 
3Morley, op. cit., pp. 274, 275. See also Morley, 1916a, pp. 338, 339, and 1917, pp. 190, 192, 193, 201, 202. 





574 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


3 Ahau 18 Kayab. This is so because the only other three Katuns 3 Ahau in the 
ukahlay katunob subsequent to the discovery of Chichen Itza (10.2.0.0.0 3 Ahau 
3 Ceh, 610 A. D., 10.15.0.0.0 3 Ahau 18 Pop, 866 A. D., and 11.8.0.0.0 3 Ahau 18 
Chen, 1122 A. D.) are too early to be probable on historic grounds, as indicated by 
the following evidence. The aélatl, which the deity or ruler in figure 86 holds 1n his 
left hand, is a Nahuatl weapon, and the Nahuatl influence did not become strong 
in Yucatan until after 11.12.0.0.0 8 Ahau 3 Mol (1201 A. p.), when, owing to the 
victory of Hunnac Ceel, the halach vinic of Mayapan, over the Itza in that katun, 
Chichen Itza seems to have been turned over to the Nahua troops, who had aided 
Hunnac Ceel in its conquest. The last Katun 3 Ahau before the Spanish Conquest 
i.e., that ending in 1379, therefore 1s probably the one intended here. 





in ho one 
"W nw 
{ 

Ht H 








_ 


Fic. 88.— Parts of inscription on back Fic. 89.— Design and part of inscription on front of Stela 
of Stela 1 at Tuluum, Yucatan. at Ichmul, Yucatan (top only recovered). 


A third example of doubtful date is Stela 1 at Ichmul (see fig. 89). This is 
only the upper part of the monument, the lower part having disappeared. It is 
now built into the wall of a house on the Hacienda of Ichmul, some 40 kilometers 
east of north from Chichen Itza. Two human figures hold in their right and left 
arms respectively a large central glyph-block, which records the day 6 or 7 Ahau, 
probably the latter. Across the top of the monument runs a row of glyph-blocks, 
of which originally there would seem to have been 24. (The left side of the stela 
is missing, see fig. 89.) 

Unfortunately, owing to the uncertainty as to whether the day 6 Ahau, or as 
the writer is inclined to believe, 7 Ahau, is recorded here, it 1s impossible to date 
this monument exactly. The following readings are the best possibilities, however: 
11.13.0.0.0 6 Ahau 3 Zip (1221), 11.19.0.0.0 7 Ahau 13 Chen (1339), and 12.6.0.0.0 
6 Ahau 3 Zac (1477), with the second, 11.19.0.0.0, as the best of all. 

Another New Empire katun-marker is Stela 9 at Mayapan, the former capital 
of the Cocom, and during the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries the leading 
city in Yucatan. This monument (see fig. 90, a) was undoubtedly one of those 
described by Landa as having been discovered by him “in the plaza of that city.’”! 
It was rediscovered by the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg in 1866, three centuries 
later,? and was subsequently removed to the casa principal of the Hacienda of 
Xcanchakanon the lands of which the ruins of Mayapan lie, and there built into 
a wall in the corridor, where it is excellently preserved. 

Again we see two figures facing each other, the right-hand one apparently 
Itzamna, God D of the Schellhas classification, the day-sign 10 Ahau in front of a 
baton he holds in his right hand.* This is clearly to be interpreted as Katun 10 








1For this whole passage, see page 577. 2Brasseur de Bourbourg, 1867, pp. 246-249, and figure 4. 
8The details of this day-sign as well as those of the other glyphs on this stela were painted, not carved, and 
have consequently disappeared; the coefficient 10, however, is unusually clear. 


THE HOTUN. 575 


Ahau, and this monument is one of those very ‘“‘stones”” which Landa says the 
natives told him they were accustomed to erect ‘‘every 20 years, which is the num- 
ber they use for counting their ages.’”’ Referring to the u kahlay katunob on page 
503, we will find that there are only two Katuns 10 Ahau to which this monument 
could possibly have belonged, namely, 11.11.0.0.0 10 Ahau 3 Mac (1182) and 
12.4.0.0.0 10 Ahau 18 Uo (1438). The writer inclines to the latter of these, as the 


carving on Stela g is excellently preserved, and the more recent date is therefore 
the better of the two. 











Fic. 90.—a. Principal part of design on front of Stelag at Mayapan, Yucatan. b. Part of 
middle section of page 11 of the Codex Peresianus. 


If 12.4.0.0.0 10 Ahau 18 Uo was the Initial Series corresponding to this Katun 
1o Ahau, as the writer believes, then Stela 9 was the last monument to be erected 
at Mayapan, because before the next one fell due, 7. ¢., at the end of the next katun, 
Katun 8 Ahau (1458), the city was destroyed by a league of Maya chieftains under 
the leadership of Tutul Xiu, halach vinic of Uxmal, and the Cocom forced to seek 
new homes elsewhere. 

Coming next to the codices, the writer has stated in Chapter I (see page 43) 
that the middle sections of pages 2 to 11 of the Codex Peresianus appear to record 
an u kahlay katunob. Here we can see a series of 10 pictures, each having two 
anthropomorphic figures facing each other, just as in figure 89, and more particu- 
larly in figure 90, a, and similarly between the two figures in each picture there is a 
day Ahau, decreasing from left to right by 2 in each picture, beginning with 2 Ahau 
on page 2 and continuing as follows: 13 Ahau (p. 3), 11 Ahau (p. 4), 9 Ahau (p. 5), 
7 Ahau (p. 6), 5 Ahau (p. 7), 3 Ahau (p. 8), 1 Ahau (p. 9), 12 Ahau (p. 10), and 10 
Ahau (p. 11), possibly parts of an u kahlay katunob. 

The picture on page 11 of this codex is shown in figure go, b, where we see two 
anthropomorphic figures facing each other. Here the left-hand one is Itzamna, 
God D; the right-hand and smaller one, sitting on a platform, is badly effaced. 
Itzamna offers in his hand the head of Kukulcan, the Long-nose God (B of the 
Schellhas classification), and just in front of this head 1s again the day 1o Ahau. 

The writer believes this picture shows the same Katun Io Ahau as the one on 
Stela 9 at Mayapan, and it should be noted that the same deity, God D, is the 
principal figure in each tableau. If this identification 1s correct, pages 2 to 11 of the 


576 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Codex Peresianus cover the period from 1241 (beginning of Katun 2 Ahau) to 1438 
(end of Katun 10 Ahau). Unfortunately, it appears more probable from the nature 
of the pictures in this section of the codex that they refer to rites and ceremonies 
which took place at the ends or installations of these katuns rather than to his- 
torical events which occurred in the corresponding periods. Always we have the 
same principal elements—a large figure on the left, apparently a deity, offering 
the head of Kukulcan to a smaller figure seated on a platform or dais. Above there 
hovers a bird, which differs in the different pictures, and below we see a vessel 
holding corn, 7. ¢., the sign for the day Kan. The similarity of these ro pictures 
strongly suggests that they refer to certain rites and ceremonies which took place 
when one katun ended and another began,! and the large figure present in each is 
probably to be interpreted as the deity presiding over the corresponding katun. 
In a word, it appears probable that these pages of the Codex Peresianus treat of 
ritualistic rather than historical matters. 

Up to this point all the evidence examined has been drawn exclusively from 
archeological sources; let us next turn to the documentary evidence touching 
upon the prevalence of this custom. So explicit-is Nakuk Pech upon this point 
that a quotation from his chronicle, already previously cited, will bear repetition 
here: 


“Tn this year [1517] the katun ended, and then ended the putting in place of the town- 
stone, for at each twentieth stone they came to place the town-stones, formerly, when the 
Spaniards had not yet come to Cuzamil, to this land; since the Spaniards came, it has 


999 


ceased to be done.’’? 


The entries in the second chronicle from the Book of Chilan Balam of Chu- 
mayel bearing upon this point tend to indicate that just prior to the time of the 
Spanish Conquest at least, several towns combined to celebrate this festival, the 
town-stone (u tunil balcah) first being put up in one town, and that for the next 
katun, in another, and so on: 


[Katun] 12 Ahau: the stone of Otzmal was taken. 

[Katun] ro Ahau: the stone of Zizal* was taken. 

[Katun] 8 Ahau: the stone of Kancaba was taken. 

[Katun] 6 Ahau: the stone of Hunnacthi was taken. 

[Katun] 4 Ahau: the stone of Ahtiku was taken; in this katun took place 
the pestilence, in the fifth tun of Katun 4 Ahau. 

[Katun] 2 Ahau: the stone of Chacalna was taken. 

[Katun] 13 Ahau: the stone of Euan was taken. 








1Says Landa in describing this ceremony: “If the Spaniards had not been here they would have adored the 
idol of 11 Ahau until the year of [15]51, which are 10 years and at the 1oth year they would have set up another 
idol, 9 Ahau, and they would have honored it, guiding themselves by the prognostications of 11 Ahau [from the 
year of 1541] until the year of [15]61, and then taking it away from the temple and putting there the idol of 7 
Ahau [surely a mistake for 9 Ahau, see following] and guiding themselves by the prognostications of 9 Ahau for 
another 10 years [apparently until 1571], and thus they made a complete round; in this manner they venerated 
their katuns for 20 years [each], and [for ?] 10 they arrange their superstitions and tricks, which are so many and 
of such a sufficiency as to deceive simple people, who look not at things as do those who are versed in the affairs 
of nature, and the dealings which the demon has with them.” (Landa, 1881, p. 103.) In this highly confused 
and confusing passage it is hard to make out just what method of procedure Landa is trying to describe, introduc- 
ing as he does the idols for three katuns, 11 Ahau, 9 Ahau, and 7 Ahau, in a period of 30 years (1541 to 1571). 
The only natural assumption is that each deity presided over a full katun, reigning from the end of the preceding 
katun to the end of its own, 7. ¢., 20 years. This introduction of a half-katun might, however, be construed as indi- 
cating that the idol of a specific katun was not placed in the temple until the katun over which it presided was 
half completed, and that it was not taken therefrom until the first half of the next katun had passed; but this 
seems to be going far out of the way indeed, to help a passage which is beyond help. 

*Brinton, 1882, p. 227. 

Possibly the modern Sisal, on the northern coast of Yucatan, the principal port during the Spanish Period. 


THE HOTUN. SR 


[Katun] 11 Ahau: in the time of its beginning the stone of Coloxpeten was 
taken; in this katun died the water-bringer Napotxiu, 
in the first tun of [Katun] 11 Ahau; it was also in this 
katun that the Spaniards first arrived here in this land, 
in the seventh year of Katun 11 Ahau; also Christianity 
began in the year of fifteen hundred and nineteen, the 
year of our Lord 1519. 

{[Katun] 9 Ahau: no stone was taken at this time; in this katun first came 
the bishop Brother Francisco Toral; he arrived in the 
sixth tun of Katun g Ahau.! 


The idea conveyed by this passage is that a group of towns possibly joined in 
putting up the same katun-marker, first at one of their number and then at another; 
thus both this and the Nakuk Pech quotation clearly refer to the erection of monu- 
ments at the katun-endings. 

The Spanish authorities are no less explicit, Bishops Landa and Cogolludo 
both making unmistakable reference to the same custom. Says Landa in this 
connection: 


“There was discovered in the plaza of that city [Mayapan] seven or eight stones, each 
10 feet in length, round at the end, and well worked. These had some writings in the char- 
acters which they use, but were so worn by water that they could not be traced. More- 
over, they think them to be in memory of the foundation and destruction of that city. 
There are other similar ones, although higher, at Zilan,? one of the coast-towns. The natives 
when asked what these things were, replied that they were accustomed to erect one of these 
stones every twenty years, which is the number they use in counting their ages.’ 


And Cogolludo has the following: 


“Their lustras having reached five in number, which made 20 years, which they call 
a katun, they place a graven stone on another of the same kind laid in lime and sand in the 
walls of their temples and the houses of the priests, as one still sees to-day in the edifices 
in question, and in some ancient walls of our own convent at Merida, about which there 
are some cells. In a city named Tixhualatun, which signifies ‘place where one graven stone 
is placed upon another,’ they say are their archives, where everybody had recourse for 
events of all kinds, as we do to Simancas.’’! 


The foregoing quotations, the writer believes, leave little room for doubt but 
that the practice of erecting monuments at the ends of successive katuns of the 
Maya chronological era persisted down to the time of the Spanish Conquest, and, 
what is even more important, they corroborate and explain the archzologic evi- 
dence and constitute nothing less than direct documentary proof of the former 
existence of this custom. 

Reviewing Maya history from its beginnings, we may conclude that although 
this custom was an early development of their civilization, there was a time when 
monuments and smaller objects were not dedicated at the ends of even periods of 
their chronological era. 








1Brinton, 1882, pp. 171, 172. 

2In February 1918, the writer found here parts of two stele, which may have been the very ones referred to 
by Landa in the above passage, another instance of the reliability and trustworthiness of his statements. Only the 
lower part of Stela 1 has been recovered. It presents a band of 5 glyphs at the bottom, the first 2 of which record 
the Calendar Round date 7 Muluc 2 Kayab. Above is a crouching human figure upon whose back stands the prin- 
cipal figure; the break occurs at the knees of the latter, and the rest of the stela is still missing. The fragment 
recovered is built into a back wall of the cabildo, on the southern side of the plaza, and some local artist has mod- 
eled in stucco the missing parts of the legs, torso, head, and arms, reconstructing the figure as that of a Mexi- 
can or German (?) soldier, helmet on head, and gun, with fixed bayonet, in hand. Stela 2 is built into a wall on 
the north side of the church-yard. It is much more effaced than Stela 1 and all that can be distinguished is a 
standing human figure with elaborately plumed head-dress, and 7 glyph-blocks, 4 before and 3 behind; al! are 
too effaced to decipher. Both these stele seem to have been found in excavating a platform which runs in front 
of a high, long mound, just west of and facing the church. Stela 1 is said to have been built into the back wall 
of the cabildo in 1900. 3Landa, 1881, p. 75. 4Cogolludo, 1688, p. 186. 


578 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


From all the evidence now available it appears probable that the Maya 
chronological system was devised some time before 8.6.2.4.17, although not neces- 
sarily long prior thereto, to keep account of periods longer than the Calendar 
Round, i. ¢., 52 years of 365 days each. For this purpose a remarkable vigesimal 
mathematical system, including numeration by position, a fixed hypothetical 
starting-point, and an ingenious arithmetical notation of bars and dots and several 
specialized characters for zero, was invented, but underlying this, and of a still 
earlier date, there were (1) a sacred or divinitory year composed of 20 names com- 
bined with 13 numerals, making 260 days, and (2) a solar year fixed at 365 days 
in length, i.¢., composed of 18 months of 20 days each and a closing period of 5 days, 
as the two basic elements of Maya chronology. 

At first this extraordinarily accurate chronology was utilized for the record of 
any date, regardless of when it occurred, as evidenced by the casuality of the 
earliest dates, 8.6.2.4.17, 8.14.3.1.12, 8.14.10.13.15, and possibly 8.15.10.3.12, but 
very early, perhaps within a century of the last one of these, 7. ¢., about the begin- 
ning of Cycle 9, an exceedingly important change was introduced, no less than the 
practice of restricting the erection, of the larger monuments at least, to the ends of 
even periods in their chronological era. 

Several fairly obvious factors must have contributed largely to the origin and 
development of this practice. In the first place, to erect a monument or dedicate 
a smaller object after the event which it was to commemorate, was to violate the 
whole Mayan conception of time. The Maya conceived, measured, and recorded 
time in terms of elapsed units, which kept them continually looking forward into 
the future for their dates of ceremonial importance, 1. ¢., those which would close 
their time-periods. This of itself would tend to restrict the erection and dedica- 
tion of monuments to dates determined in advance by the passage of successive 
units of their chronological system, rather than to encourage the memorialization 
of early events at fortuitously chosen later times. 

Another very practical advantage to which this custom gave rise was the ample 
opportunity it afforded the priests to make the necessary arrangements for these 
important occasions, which the writer has pointed out in Chapter V required 
considerable forethought, elaborate planning, and coordination of activities in the 
not inconsiderable mechanical labor involved in quarrying, transporting, and 
erecting the monuments, to say nothing of the artistic efforts involved in their 
sculpture. 

A third factor was that of economic necessity. The work of many kinds, 
required to bring a monument to the point of completion must have withdrawn 
from purely economic production many laborers at not infrequent intervals, and 
as the period-endings in a very brief time shift all around the cycle of the seasonal 
year, it is obvious that careful planning was necessary to prevent these religio- 
esthetic activities from interfering with the more urgent need of producing corn and 
cotton, 1. ¢., food and clothing, in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of 
the community. The latter demands were imperative. The beginning of the dry 
season fixed the time when the bush had to be felled, the beginning of the rainy 
season when the fields had to be planted. These labors brooked no delay, and other 
activities, religious, architectural, etc., had to be made to conform to the exigencies 
of agriculture. Thus the selection, a long time in advance, 5, 10, and 20 years, of 
the dates upon which their monuments were to be erected, gave the Maya ample 
time to prepare for these events, without interfering with the production of those 
food and clothes-stuffs upon which the very life of the community depended. And 
so, about the beginning of Cycle 9, the custom of erecting their monuments only on 





‘THE HOTUN. 579 


period-endings was inaugurated, and the original custom of erecting them after the 
events they memorialized had taken place, as evidenced by the casuality of the 
dates of the earliest monuments as opposed to the periodicity of the dates of the 
- great majority of the later ones, was discontinued. 

It must not be concluded that important dates, not coinciding with period- 
endings, were never recorded. On the contrary, many such were, as for example 
the important date 9.16.12.5.17 6 Caban 10 Mol at Copan, 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 
5 Kayab and 9.15.6.14.6 6 Cimi 4 Tzec at Quirigua, 9.11.12.7.2 2 Ik 10 Pax and 
9.13.9.14.15 7 Men 18 Kankin at Piedras Negras; 9.15.10.17.14 6 Ix 12 Yaxkin at 
Yaxchilan, and 9.12.10.5.12 4 Eb 10 Yax, 9.12.15.13.7 9 Manik o Kayab, and 
9.14.1.3.19 3 Cauac 2 Pop at Naranjo. But the important point in all these cases 
is that these casual dates (with the exception of 9.16.12.5.17) are never the con- 
temporaneous dates of the monuments upon which they are recorded, but are 
always prior thereto, the contemporaneous date in each case being a subsequent 
period-ending. ‘Thus, for example, at Quirigua four different monuments begin 
with the date 9.14.13.4.17 12 Caban 5 Kayab, but Secondary Series in each case 
bring forward the beginning dates to subsequent period-endings which are in each 
case the corresponding contemporaneous date of the monument, i.¢., Stela J 
g9.16.5.0.0; Stela F, 9.16.10.0.0, Stela E, 9.17.0.0.0, and Zobmorph G, 9.17.15.0.0. 

By beginning their inscriptions with such dates as these, or reaching them by 
Secondary Series elsewhere in the texts, the Maya were able to record events of 
astronomical or historical importance to them, but upon monuments which were 
erected at fixed predetermined periods. ‘The period-markers were in effect, 5, 10, 
or 20 year almanacs issued at the ends of these respective periods, which covered 
important matters that had come to pass therein, or even earlier. 

The unit of their chronological system first selected for this important purpose 
was probably the katun, or 20-year period, in spite of the fact that all our earliest 
examples are of lahuntuns, but as the Maya waxed in strength, wealth, and pros- 
perity they were able to erect monuments more frequently, and presently this 
interval was cut in half, and the lahuntun-endings were similarly commemorated. 

Still later, as we have seen, this interval was again cut in half at some cities, 
and every hotun or 5-year period marked by the erection of a corresponding monu- 
ment. And thus the matter continued throughout the Old Empire. As the suc- 
ceeding hotun-endings came around, all over that considerable region from Palen- 
que and Ocosingo in the west, across the valleys of the Usumacinta, Lacantun, 
Pasion, and Motagua Rivers, and the rolling plains and interior drainage area of 
northern Peten to Quirigua and Copan in the southeast (see plate 1), on the same day 
monuments were being dedicated, with elaborate and impressive ceremonies we 
may feel sure, at all the occupied cities. Especially was this true of every fourth 
hotun, the katun-endings which from first to last throughout both the Old and the 
New Empires continued to be of greater importance than first, second, or third 
hotun-endings. For proof of this see the several maxima in figure 70 at 9.11.0.0.0, 
9.13.0.0.0, 9.14.0.0.0, 9.15.0.0.0, 9.16.0.0.0, 9.17.0.0.0 and 9.18.0.0.0. 

At first the hotun-endings were marked by stelz exclusively, but later, as at 
Quirigua for example, low boulderlike stones were used, the so-called zodmorphs, 
and elsewhere even small altars, and finally, toward the end of the Old Empire, 
when the Maya were truly at their cultural zenith, their esthetic and intellectual 
apogee, whole temples were dedicated, especially at the katun-endings.' 


> 








1£xamples of this are the dedication of Temple 10 at Piedras Negras in 9.12.0.0.0, of the Temples of the Cross, 
Foliated Cross, and Inscriptions at Palenque in 9.13.0.0.0, of Temple 214 and the Reviewing-Stand in the Western 
Court at Copan, and of Temple 10 at Yaxchilan in 9.17.0.0.0, of Temple 17 at Naranjo in 9.18.0.0.0, and of Temple 
I at Quirigua in 9.19.0.0.0. 


580 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


At the very end of the Old Empire there is an obvious return to the first prac- 
tice of commemorating only the katun-endings. No first, second, or third hotun- 
endings have been found at any of the Old Empire cities after 9.19.10.0.0, and the 
few that seem to have been occupied during the first two katuns of Cycle 10, the 
little group in the northeastern corner of Peten, Flores, Tikal, Nakum, Ucanul, 
and Benque Viejo, and Seibal in central Peten, only commemorated the katun- 
endings 10.1.0.0.0 and 10.2.0.0.0. 

After the extinction of the Old Empire civilization, Maya culture poured out 
of the Old Empire region in two directions, south into the highlands of Guatemala 
and north into the plains of Yucatan. The custom we are examining just managed 
to reach the northern edge of the first region (Stela 1 and 2 at Quen Santo, see 
plate 1), but for some unknown reason could not, or at least did not, survive there. 
In the north, however, this practice fared better, and we have two lahuntun-end- 
ings declared on Initial Series monuments within the first century after the close of 
the Old Empire (7. ¢., the Chichen Itza lintel and Stela 1 at Tuluum). But coin- 
cident with the collapse of Initial Series dating in the New Empire, it would seem 
to have become restricted in its application principally, although probably not 
exclusively, at least at first,’ to the katun-endings only. 

As has been shown in the foregoing pages, we have archzologic proof of this in 
such monuments as Stela 9 at Mayapan, Stela 1 at Ichmul and the Cave of Loltun, 
as well as preconquest manuscript evidence thereof in the Codex Peresianus, and 
direct contemporary documentary corroboration therefor in the accounts of Nakuk 
Pech, Juan Josef Hoil (the redactor of the Chumayel chronicles), Landa, Cogolludo, 
and even Villagutierre Sotomayor, and the indirect evidence furnished by the pas- 
sages quoted from the « kahlay katunob in the Books of Chilan Balam. 

In closing this description of the hotun, it is perhaps well to point out that 
monuments were not erected exclusively at these times, as, for example, Stela 11 
at Yaxchilan, which bears the date 9.16.1.0.0, and Stela 6 at Naranjo, erected in 
9.17.1.0.0; but that the very great majority were can not be gainsaid. 

It was one of the most important facts of ancient Maya life. It must have 
influenced and absorbed the activities of a great part of the population of 
every Maya city; and finally it must have determined not only the times for some 
of their most important feasts and ceremonies, but also profoundly affected their 
very religion as well. It was, in fine, the most fundamental phase of their religion 
and life of which we have archzologic evidence, and the persistence with which it 
prevailed, practically unchanged for more than 15 centuries (1. ¢., down to 1697), 
is ample proof that it was also one of the most deep-rooted customs of their own 
times. 








1In addition to the lahuntun-endings on the Chichen Itza lintel and Stela 1 at Tuluum, the writer found a 
Tun 11 ending on a column in the Temple of the High Priests’ grave at Chichen Itza, 11.19.11.0.0 2 Ahau 18 Xul 
(see figure 76), and a Tun 13 ending in the Temple of the Initial Series at Holactun, either 10.9.13.0.0 2 Ahau 
8 Yax or 11.2.13.0.0 2 Ahau 8 Cumhu, and possibly others. 


APPENDIX VIII. 


LIST OF MONUMENTS MARKING THE HOTUN-ENDINGS DURING THE OLD 
EMPIRE. 


This Appendix contains a list of all known hotun-markers, including those at 
Copan; it is, in short, a concordance of all the examples of this type of Maya monu- 
ment now known, and has been frequently cited in the synoptic headings in Chapters 
IT, ILI, and IV for purposes of comparison. The writer believes it to be as complete 
as it is now possible to make it, although future investigation, particularly explora- 
tion in the two regions mentioned on page 439, 1. ¢., the eastern part of the State 
of Chiapas, Mexico, and the northern part of the Department of Peten, Guatemala, 
will doubtless greatly amplify it. Such exploration will certainly lead to the dis- 
covery of additional inscriptions from the Middle and Great Periods, while exca- 
vation, particularly at Uaxactun, Tikal, and other sites in the immediate vicinity, 
may be as confidently depended upon to yield additional texts, although fewer in 
number, dating from the Early Period. 

The writer finds 165 different inscriptions on stelz, altars, lintels, hieroglyphic 
steps and stairways, piers, tablets, and cornices which may now be included in 
this list of hotun-markers. Of these, 134 are surely deciphered as given, 21 prob- 
ably so, and 10 very doubtfully so. Possibly as high as 150, and certainly not lower 
than 140, may be accepted as correctly deciphered. Of these 165 texts, the con- 
temporaneous dates are declared by Initial Series in 72 cases (44 per cent.) and by 
Period Endings in 93 cases (56 per cent.). 

The data pertaining to these texts are presented as follows: The successive 
hotun-endings from 9.0.0.0.0 to 10.6.10.0.0 appear in the first column. In the 
second column are given the names of the sites at which the corresponding monu- 
ments in the third column are found. The nature of the contemporaneous dates, 
1. €.. whether they are expressed by Initial Series or Period Endings, is given in the 
fourth column. When there are no monuments dating from any given hotun- 
ending, the last three columns for that particular hotun have no entries, as, for 
example, the first two hotun-endings in the list. 

In some cases hotun-endings are recorded as secondary dates on monuments, 
but not as their contemporaneous dates, as for example, 9.0.0.0.0, the first hotun- 
ending in the list, which appears on several monuments, but nowhere as a contem- 
poraneous date. It is obvious that no monuments can be referred to any given 
hotun-ending on such a basis, but in these cases a note indicates on what monu- 
ments such secondary non-contemporaneous dates have been found. 

Dates probably, but not surely, correctly deciphered are indicated by a single 
interrogation point, thus (?), after the name of the corresponding monument in the 
third column, and dates very doubtfully deciphered, by the double interrogation 
point, thus (??). 

The natural growth and expansion of the Old Empire civilization is clearly 
indicated in the following table. At first the hotun-markers are few and scattering, 
and, in fact, so continue until the close of the Early Period. Beginning with the 
Middle Period, however, they become more frequent and regular, increasing in these 
respects until the height of the Great Period, when the katun ending on 9.18.0.0.0 
was commemorated at no less than nine different cities. After this latter date they 
decrease in frequency, ceasing temporarily between 9.19.15.0.0 and 10.0.15.0.0 
inclusive, and finally (so far as the Old Empire was concerned) after 10.2.0.0.0. 


581 





582 





THE INSC 


RIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


List of Hotun-markers during the Old Empire. 





Earty PeErtiop. 





Monument. 


Kind of date. 


G0. 8.0101 0g violate Bin a'e.e's wisnin'e 0 oom b wiaye  hlacermiai] «igo eum eine) dean calpain ce che ee 


HOVE hsgode b GAL 








Tikal 


Stela (Sry sca caeec eee 


Period Ending. 


60 6 0 00 8 Oe 8 e088 * wee Owe o 0) 0 8 0) eke 0) 6 mis) s)@ sm eee) a) 6 eis ¢ 41.9) 0 il\'e (em) mee) 6) (wlelels) eile) sis) s\ie)(u nie) salle eee 


‘Btelaip, (i) vcwtan eee 


ara) si ble = c\'o.t, wie! Seve laiteve)s| 01's 











: Bf es ae, AE irre: 


OSes 06.6, 08 © 0.6 OKs © 0 6 0 166: ele le kee ee 


© 66 0. € 00 0 0.6 0 6 6 0 0s 6 0). = elles eee 
© €) 4.0 6p w © ae 0) 8 6) @ 6 ©) 60) 0) 0 © 9) mietelele 
© O ae © 0 8 Ble ¢ > 6 0 8 te 0.0.6 eins) «lel evelaen 
oC ew eee 6 6 we 6 6 we oe ee ue) mianereun 
oo 018 o: 0, 6 0 6 <0 ee We (epieve: eee eni eile lineal 


F ate = erg . + has ee 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 


oo 6 vis oo 60 8 wie (6 0 trees jee Miata teal e am 


[ba © 6 0, chs we je 0) 6 ellinve 1 © 0) el ereleteie 
86. (Oe Cee 08 Ce me Oe Bee (0) .5) Rae in eee 
od es 0) 8 le ele, © 10 616.0 (6. 2ue le) wilellelnielmiheae 


eo 6 8 fe B éje su @ 6 m0) 0 © 610) 60 © © otelm eee 
eC ae 60 6 8 eS O86 6 a & 8 ee elelerern es 
06 ae 0 ee Sew 68 6 0 «6 eee Clasp See 
0, 0.\01j0) 6 'e Que (0.0) Bie (Bee) s\\6) oles sw sleeane 
S 0.816) © 0) (0, 08) 010 » oe) Oa 6 a0) 0 (wiamualeiena 


eevee twee 6 ¢ 0 6.6 6 © 8 6 «hele einem 


1This important date, the beginning of the cycle during which the Maya reached their first great cultural 


efflorescence, is recorded, although not as a contemporaneous date, at several places: here at Copan on Stele 15 
and 3 for example (see pp. 88, 89, and 157); again on the tablet in the Temple of the Cross at Palenque (see 
Morley, 1915, p. 228); and finally as the opening entry in the u kahlay katunob from the Books of Chilan Balam of 
Mani and Tizimin, according to the writer’s correlation of Old and New Empire chronology (see Appendix II, 
P. 503). 

2This is possibly the oldest contemporaneous hotun-ending known. 

3This date is recorded by the Initial Series on the west side of Stela C at Quirigua, the contemporaneous date 
of which is shown by a Period Ending date to have been about 325 years later, 7. ¢., in 9.17.5.0.0. (See Morley, 
I9QI5, pp. 173-175, 179, note 1, 226.) 

4This is probably the earliest contemporaneous date at Copan. 

’This is the earliest surely deciphered hotun, lahuntun, or katun-ending known. 

°On the tablet in the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque, the ro katun-endings from 9.4.0.0.0 to 9.13.0.0.0 
inclusive are recorded, the first as an Initial Series, the others as Period Ending dates, the last being the contem- 
poraneous date of the temple. (See Morley, 1915, p. 84, note I.) 

7This date is also recorded by the Initial Series on Stela 1 at Tuluum. The contemporaneous date of this 
monument, however, 10.6.10.0.0, just one cycle later, is expressed by a Period Ending date. (See Morley, 1916a, 
PP. 338, 3393 thid., 1918a, pp. 274, 275.) 

’This date also appears as a tun-ending on a square altar at Chinikiha (plate 1), although not as its contem- 
poraneous date, the month-sign being the unusual dog-head variant of the month Kankin first deciphered by the 
writer in 1914, and the tun-sign “the winged-Cauac” variant, deciphered by the writer in 1918. (See Maler, 
1go!, plate 2, A-c.) 

°This date is recorded as a Period Ending, although not the contemporaneous date, of the tablet in the 
Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque. (See Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. rv, plate 57.) 





LIST OF MONUMENTS MARKING THE HOTUN-ENDINGS. 


List of Hotun-markers during the Old Empire—continued. 


Earty Perrop—continued. 





583 


Date. Site. Monument. Kind of date. 
OiSe1 G0: Obes eases Piedras Negras....... Ditela Sees bch kn een evans is Period Ending. 
APO OLN fe ecient: Copan ais Seas us Stelarwerien ts avec. at 4 aein aes Initial Series. 
FOS 0.Ohascee es Cogati.s :ctes ot yan NS Re EO ee gree ae em Period Ending. 
OST O.0-02 see aici ees (Conaiacusk amase sone Stelazbeneee a eee ec iasictoa oe Initial Series. 
Reese SOLAR fet anid 95, Gas hs oat Bena be ea be Te PL es cir ee Recent Seah Sm Pema vA AM Seay # Bere 
QyNO OLOsO% eae nk) aye Sale Narenia.. cass wees Reused lintel in Hier. Stairway.| Period Ending. 
EbPabeliGnn omc ot DECUECT AMINE Si il Pa Gund sich Initial Series. 
Mippie Periop. 
oh Us NIB Fo a gee ae Altar de Sacrificios . Me CUA Earn ae a WE ore Period Ending. 
Piedras Negras....... PrRGEA PAS NIE cate cc droni Wie Bhs a Initial Series. 
ol Cie (Ne Wy saa ene Alear de Saeriheiog 5. botela:d. cy wes sacs sce sain sees Period Ending. 
| eke Ls (a Wego ea Wy.  a Hieroglyphic Stairway (?)....| Initial Series. 
Palenquenqennan ose Temple of the Sun........... Period Ending. 
CPL OUU 0): On tiem re erste a [Pera ae neta: ortticns cncedia oda oan | eens tate cccoke vie als Kie.acg ovine </4 eh e ail sabe Saabs, faelete chun ane 
EO Oral eo CNMI BU rareiceodie ose Saxe tel ari 2anieyse «ersten eee ci Period Ending. 
Copan ECL ALM Romy creases lores Period Ending. 
Copan Brclai her UL hese ote cere a8 xs Period Ending. 
CitA Theale ae eis a= tele EQci oe vee tee eee. oes Period Ending. 
ee Yr RE Ra os arenes SRG a ae hoc ioe ans = Maat Period Ending. 
Copan UCHR Dade ca gts eae Initial Series. 
AGODA, ae: poate sas CU ON Sens eee SIC Initial Series. 
Palenguesy.s :aa35565° Palaces Liouse Gaara sla eas Period Ending. 
BAleNdue.wntonce te STEW DRS, 6 cosy Onn chOccrpee irs A Period Ending. 
UL TamGeOlOn cis walters Reena ce esta 37} ORO ail Bie cna =e oa) s@ aly vce Initial Series. 
PRO OO oss octane « Piedras Negras....... Beebe ae Cian aaniar ae saad 8 Period Ending. 
BE Le 0 neg ore CSOT. et che se cae cP L el CG 0 Brae Scenes ira, Gaby COMER ONRIe Period Ending. 
COGAN ad.e eee. sh ast Altamol otela- 5 ssh. s Initial Series. 
Piedras Negras....... peed at tate cee ites hei vous oe Period Ending. 
Piedras Negras....... Deitel Cote Neeser eee crs: Period Ending. 
Ord, O01 « «wile ab RSODAL Ardy Ok dis oo West Altar of Stela 5......... Period Ending. 
ASGDAT Me Neceeiet totes Aléan ol¢otelaliee cme mee cee Period Ending. 
Piedras Negras....... bela 4 tage ec Osa ws a Initial Series. 
PTS AAG Os cc rsutte att COPA N Mista Sala ws tela tog trs ahs re ole ase Period Ending. 
RAO Os es ines vs LOpd ace ema Rh WOTOla Ont oo 2. <acico x dels" nue Initial Series. 
G2. TE O.0n 5 oe sinc'’ Piedras Negras....... Stel aiG ee eerie oe Initial Series. 
15 POONIS i ss sca Bee SEE Ss SE Tae 2 ar Period Ending. 
‘ei ee ee ee A bate een eet eatohe Initial Series. 
PALCDQUEL creesses sind Temple of the Inscriptions....| Period Ending. 
Pal ateletay. ha jo seoree Temple of the Foliated Cross. .| Period Ending. 
Palenquesass§ 22 sacs Temple of the Cross (?)...... Period Ending. 
elenduenece et nares Stela in front of the Temple of 
the Gross meant cn teen oe: Period Ending. 
Piedras Negras....... Shela SALT ck on 2 Laer Gauge SP Period Ending. 
Tzendales............] Temple of the Tablet........ Period Ending. 
REPRESS PGS Bia Blane oe ote Piedras Negras....... Te Ro eee aay AA SRS Initial Series. 




















1This date also appears as the Initial Series of Stela 4 at Copan, although not the contemporaneous date of 


that monument. (See p. 357.) 


2This date is also recorded on Slab 6 of the Hieroglyphic Stairway at Naranjo, but not as the contempo- 
raneous date of that construction. (See Maler, 1908a, plate 27, C3.) 
3It is possible that this date on the Hieroglyphic Stairway at Naranjo may not be contemporaneous, although 


the writer is inclined to accept it as such. 


4This date is recorded by the Initial Series on Stel 12 and 2 at Copan, but in neither case is it probably 


the contemporaneous date of the monument. 


(See pp. 132, 135, 136, 160.) 


’This date is also recorded by a Period Ending on Altar H’, but the style of this monument, as well as the 
calculations in its inscription, are so closely connected with those of Altar I’, the contemporaneous date of which 
is 9.13.0.0.0, that it appears necessary to regard the contemporaneous date of both as having been the same, 


namely, 9.13.0.0.0. (See pp. 186, 189, 193, 194.) 


THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


List of Hotun-markers during the Old Empire—continued. 


















































MippLe PEertop—continued. 

Date Site Monument 
0.13.10:0.0' sen eh ee Copany.cei ss issgeans| SCCLA) Keene aman eee 
INanranjOxee eerae er ante Stela2eciee Sanna aaron 
INarany Once seca carne StelaV4ueer o..nnc a atone 
Piedras Negras. 2...20c)| Dtelavdente erent eee 
O14, 1Si010+1 ee eaet Naranjo; cts ta parat Stela: 202, ee ane eren 
Piedras Negras....... StelavT Rae aie e cee eee 
D1 wOOO-cs meee ee Altarde Sacrificios....7) Stelagayetm ase opera eee 
Copan ore Stelae (0) Getic ete eee 
Jtsimté ncn resect Altarsnie)ic ae apes iee cere 
INEVETNOs gocaAcodoosne Stela 270k cnc Coe ees 
Piedras Negras....... Stela Fla, ver icncwce een 
Vikaleaassc cree bela: OMCs cc aaneee eee 
Waxactune eee Stelaye (rans eee 
105.142 8.000, oie eee Piedras Negras....... tela goers cuca eee eee 
OQ. 4. 1000;0" xe eee ae Tesinee OF ei eee Aleagot en a. scien eee 
WNaratj0./ ss. eeaeeees Shela aes J Cae ek te ree 
Piedras Negras....... Stela Wure b: clita Re ene eee 
O:T 4. 15,000" oer nee Naranio.. 05 cc ences Stela/tOi zie rice eee 
Piedras Negras....... Altarer(§) S06 se sonar ee 

Great PeEriop. 

fo Eanes Ra pen ee eh ly COPA. epee ge mtelacAy ye cas Sau ahem 
Copan Stela 'Bis-ha- i cee oeau.< eee 
Copan Altar Saiiiwitaeah ck eee 
Fesimtée ssid eee Stela eit ex senescent 
Piedras Negras....... Stella’ TIMOe cae ence 
OTS) SO. ee meee Copan 22 Ae neers Stela Dii.cce aad cane 
Piedras Negras....... Stela Gave tse son cork 
G15. 16.010" 15h eee Tisnnte,. teeta: Dcela swiss desacatee eee ae 
Piedras: Negras....... Stela (OAc wien nee eee 
Gls 18.00. . eae Ouirigntar 6 ova a amen DECLA LS AP ens aeetene aon eae 
Yaxchilanes see Altar near Structure 39...... 
QO. 1 Or On0) oe ee Piedras Negras......- Altar 21 eei peeve cere eae 
Ouirigwas: eet cee Stella, Ta, cs sesac ete es noe 
petbal io kane eee Hieroglyphic Stairway....... 
Waxactunweean eee Otel a 2eewen., Seer tee ere 
Qu 5525-010 Nate Copanves.s3.4 eee StelasMigies Sack aes 
Piedras Negras. -....-. Stelaisoe aspera ack 
uinigials. tee eee ptelad) tein ahi aca unum 
VYoxchilanis.s eee nee Lintel .Q.5 trata etka eee 
OMS ATSHOWO 5 oa gnu car Copante es eee Stelau IN W.bst eects ee 
| aiHonradezes- ae Stela:G: (Gh) een o onrae 
Ouiriguass A eee BrelasBec Sa eeenae eae an eee 





'This date is also recorded as a Period Ending, in Date 21 of the Hieroglyphic Stairway here at Copan. (See 


pp. 256, 257.) 


2This date also appears as a Period Ending on Stela F at Copan, although not the contemporaneous date 
( (See p. 354.) 
’This date is also recorded as a Period Ending on Stela 4 at Copan, although not the contemporaneous date 
(See p. 357.) ee 

‘This date appears on a number of monuments, although in no others is it the contemporaneous date: on Altar 
U at Copan (see pp. 304, 305), on Stela E at Quirigua (see Morley, 1915, pp. 235-239), on Stela F at Quirigua (see 
ibid., 1915, pp. 239, 240), on Altar M at Quirigua (see ibid., 1915, pp. 240-242), and on Altar 2’ at Piedras Negras. 

‘This date appears on three wooden lintels from Temples I and III, and the Palace of the Five Stories at Tikal. 


of that monument. 


of that monument. 


(See Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 111, plates 72, 74, 77, 78.) 





Kind of date. 


Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending (?) 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 


Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. | 


Initial Series. i 
Initial Series. . 
Initial Series. 

Initial Series. 


Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Tnitial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 





LIST OF MONUMENTS MARKING THE HOTUN-ENDINGS. 


585 


List of Hotun-markers during the Old Empire—continued. 











Great PERIop—continued. 





9.16.10.0.0.—continued 
9.16.15.0.07 


ES 7 os PO Ogee sin-eicre sas 


ONS GUeMe A Sao mine 


Oxi 1OLO.Orere nce 6 


ne tad See a es 


EES BOLOIO. ants oh iti 


ul Sosr5+OsO en wantrnrelt he 


(ow oli (soe Prayer cleric 











Yaxehilanguceaytene on 
Piedras Negras... 124. 
uiripna 2s, Cerne 


La Moncades ie ; 
Nalgene 
Piedras Negras....... 


Cuinipiia 2220, aoe 
Serbal Ay eset ee 


ISRO tse ce > 
oe Eee s not coxa nk 
La Honradez:..2.45. « 
PeACAN gs oe eke ee 
Marania. sc. se 
Oiiroway ese > 
eis By ere ee 
Raita). ae es 
Aguas Calientes...... 
RPAMEEN! i, cals so Be 


WavHlontadezaccs visas 
PIAEBNIO. su. Sen nena: 
Piedras Negras....... 


Og Cae ee 
EMU le cies veils cert 


COME ees cette ns 
Piedras Negras....... 
Ouimeuian aera kes: 
Wopanlen sate aes 


INATAING) smithiae 
NENEIMTIO: os cidea mre eae 
INaranjoseearatri tc 


Ouirieuaue eae 
meal sca ere en tks 














ALE as C) ame mer eter cee egeetentreT eater 
HNIC AEG Vice are bie Shes Reseda, ales 
SRCLASE PUN Ose cohhicare atc ne wee 
cemiplerr sinters aceon. oes 


Stelaccrch) weerreae rer ien er 
SECUAT Ey oe cnn e syste rake cae 


eile 3 Ri a Me vei ae 
Stelasro mere Bereta ecticer 


Nol ei Ae ott cee a PN Be 


Stelasrmee secs aocine cee 


Pirapimenten: (il) ochre oes 
GGL aL beens fn cena ago 4 = 


rae) ye ec a 
Cae WA ed) ae sara hohe ne tag 
LGOMOE DING) § 5 6.9 dave» he ticlte sit 
Stelayien(t) races. te cree 
HA ec anes Sea eRe ae ee 


Altai (Giese aerate nectar 
DECHEISEUL Tem eae sotaoiiinl otters 
Steg Mr ik Acuna eee ee ok 
CELA See et et sine mtare wien 











Kind of date. 


Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending (?). 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending (?). 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series, 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 
Period Ending. 
Initial Series. 
Period Ending. 











The Initial Series actually recorded on this monument is 9.11.10.0.0 1 Ahau 3 Zip, the month-sign not appear- 
ing in its regular position after Glyph A of the Supplementary Series, but farther on in the text. This Initial 
Series number, however, will not lead to this terminal date, but a correction of 5 in the katun coefficient, that is, 
adding one bar to the two bars and a dot actually recorded, making the katun coefficient 16 instead of 11, will 
reach this date, and 9.16.10.0.0 may therefore be accepted as the correct reading for this Initial Series. 

*This date is recorded as a Period Ending on, although not the contemporaneous date of, Altar G3 at Copan. 


(See p. 325.) 


3The katun coefficient of this Initial Series number is incorrectly recorded as o instead of 18. The terminal 
date, however, is fairly clear on the front, and even clearer on the back as 11 Ahau 18 Mac, and 9.18.0.0.0 may 
therefore be safely accepted as the contemporaneous date of this monument. 


586 


THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


List of Hotun-markers during the Old Empire—continued. 















































Great PerRtop—continued. 
Date. Site Monument. Kind of date. 

O.58:18:0.040) chia La. Mar .cci.os ernie d <p Dt@laues . ala ke ween ee Period Ending. 

OUNEOE sincn os nas wor etela Korcohate sce nee nes Initial Series. 
8). LOT OO.O. 5, aerareatace Naranioz,..< sence. Stela 9. cat teen ers se Period Ending. 

Naranjos,.¢ 1st ee Stelatio. dg. deve mere ooh aetos Period Ending. 

Ouinenay. eee eee Tem plé-2;, deeds «akon oar Initial Series. 

Usxactun.oco.ck eee tela. 457, cise ober oo ee Initial Series. 
cM ca hehe Sn) ee rere eG ee daar) Rk Ai Reka 
9.19.10.0:0:5. sees Nalin dca gene St elauG ens delet curser eee aa Period Ending. 

Naratjor... nes acters Stela $3. crsstoeet a cena Period Ending. 

om Cos hhh oa ne eee ry i HOA Ana a  Sih chose til acrrs 
LO.0. O.0.01 5 so:6 5 '5)040i6's|| sustehndovace tn). ete wlvalte otTole elliareve ovine ten crobegat Othe eRe ete eet a eTeR CRT GIRS aan et Fen 
(oo oho nS eer er rei Men rr eee eta PN ee 
| (oko) (heh oA reer ee on Mere rer ee ee 
| (os Chek: nN ere ee rena Pe rn maniacs fesse svoar cs 
TO.1s O/C:Ose eee eee Benque Viejo......... Stela il Sear e nee Ce Period Ending. 

lores secant eee tela oe owed ae kom, oes Cees Period Ending (?). 

Na kita eee StelacL4. 2% ae ae ee Period Ending. 

Sei bal apace vee Stela’8. <tr ee ee Period Ending. 

Seibal. oe cee ee tela 0. Ao: sak enec ree mee Period Ending. 

Seiballe. sons ae Stela 1Ow nek coe ee eee Period Ending. 

Seibal Ashe ee ae ee Stela‘tist& #00 eee Period Ending. 

Weanalenmeeeeeen eee Stele tek tes Geodata ee Period Ending. 
TOT. 5.0.0.0 6 5.0:5'd 00. S] 8 = ovatia cw mw alle io nie: niersvnbecets [aha ro Scales a Wea tele ftireiie: atytehe aa a ete aneaenT cae emanate 
TO. 1, 10.0.0... 56.0 0 dng snips epeiatiaunl's 6 aiareie Go aiele’> Sia eff PR re vecla esas Mave al w wee gett eee ee a 
TO. Ty 1§.O.0. osseiae e oietanalfis sa els vp ig wii) aia ‘ee Sy lo a) aie] asta role agaalere cre’ lang oleile Grete etre cee tame ee tee 
10.25 (0.010 eee Blores a esr ee Stela't casing Seen sc eee Period Ending. 

Scibalaaeen aoe Stela ino, Saar eee Period Ending. 

D Uk alee le atten ae. Stelast fs 34-30 2 tae cee ee Initial Series. 

List of Hotun-markers during the New Empire. 
CoLonizATION PERIop (begins in 9.14.0.0.0). 

10. 25-6:0.63444.. hoe Quen Santo. +4) 2.0:> Scola ie eees chet vid a eee oe ee Initial Series. 
10.2:10!0:O; ae eee Ouen' Santo.: o.440.. Stela Sees va Caen eee Initial Series. 

Chichen leza.;0..5- 0 Temple of the Initial Series... .| Period Ending. 
| Coty Do 69 oo RNY ee renee arn a) en ae eth eA SA ciincemyokvo-adinadqoncaoccccsss.- 

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. 

10.3. 0.0.0, 0.66 wade dia [eis cueipiale a unwise eink @ aloo s Pe die edn Bieled wiisanie al felele ateeerea ete i mete ena cian et eae aa 
10.3. §.O.0.0000n'ra sp foes ae ccib a Glaie ob laa ese aye ieee She eeeReePetniucaier a: o.ckel racist cekes ROU anes eee ee ieee tae 
ToD BS fell oy « Re en Mir nine are ircr ined erate = nye) Fegan atte ston liad, carladian cad Goins noacce. 
10.3615 0.0. «s/dia.o.n sare a] Saccigrersis Hin ae pine nm am ts ote oreo weceare a wleiare ota feactene terns OP Rect ae: aie ae ence 
TOG. O.0.0..6 0: 0.0ie's aiels 2 foie ole isihein's lies ma ate wid 52 Lelbre MRR R Tal te tD™e eletla, aha a esen eS DSI eA ee 
TOge 50.004 saa Fam a eis scale die alesis cle mb e ice aha euecaterdiet teeter a Fite cle ee tet tie tetie te nnn eect an 
10.4. 1.0.0.0) a .4.0:4. asa} inn ig mevareorsiareihua doce wiaa a farig’s ie Oe allele Vote Sees NUR nS ate tee Cone ene 
TO.4-15 0.0. ¢'9ce ems. jhoailia «5 glgis ave Shelly apa\Sanwopaly cgelfsace stb ale eleielece ate Baraunioas ptakel eet ae ee eee eee 
LOLS + Q.OL05 vie 6 «gue n'f ve ae oy ifn eee alin 9/siae aod « fares & Bega eeeh ees Resse ane are RGR Rane Ree on ea 
FOS, SsO.Oissis.o. 5 9 syn ssvallsisaiheua sein oi Silay ingot (olbslzene-obtescave lf snente Won el hae ata acts hae Meme OR TOE TE cal eR cee ea eee 
10.5 +1O.0.05 « 5:1: 6/0.0 mess uifjs wih gig i 6 a SowudTecmcieietate mad [a aati che Alanis telco Sane Let 
eA 0 heh eee en een ane ned Ein woe inion baa See oe Leos od Abe cow seo betomebaabucusace: 
LO.6.. 00.05 0.0i4,6:5 wins in| aca sac 0id Sip Bisel iy aulomys aaa eta oe ae Resets teal ee epee ema | 
TO.6. 510.00. 65500 csne le wa ved ovis salah Ue cee ela ee TIS Cer INCE Gates Ee Ren 
10.6,70,0.0) ema sine sD ialletamig 21 irene eee ptela Tt (fic, anata eee Period’Ending. 








‘Curiously enough, although it is recorded on a number of different monuments as a prophetic date, as, for 
example, on Stele J and 8 and Altar S$ at Copan (see pp. 197, 198, 342, 343, and 227-229, respectively), on 
Altar 1 at Piedras Negras, on Stela 11 at Seibal (see Morley, 1915, pp. 230, 231), and on Zodmorph G at Quirigua 
(see ibid., 1915, pp. 229, 230), this important period-ending has not yet been found anywhere as a contempo- 


raneous date. 





APPENDIX IX. 
THE PROVENANCE AND DATES OF THE COPAN MONUMENTS. 


Note.—The monuments marked with asterisks, thus, Stela E*, do not have their contemporaneous dates ex- 






































pressed by their corresponding Initial Series dates but by subsequent Period Ending dates. Since such inscrip- 
tions in every case begin with Initial Series, however, they have been classified as such in column 4. 
I. THe Monuments oF THE Earty Pertop. 

Monument Provenance Date Kind of date. Class. 
PRIRACT eisuiee sos 55s CSPOUD) Stee Br oteiecn in SOON OG EO O.R Or OdOpereuas Ci aeait es bay ea: 4 serie vd alae oe 
Altar K’ Groagd 153580971 Carne MEET OSs Onr O10 OY coos gl | ie bee ye wae ate USHA a Ae 
WmeaTeNs Je eee a. 5s SFEOUG, Oa ear sae Ee WOO OrES, G.):00 C On dens ca lair ah taeds sMuaewbenwe es 
PS LEAT MV ets bode oe HGH Oe La ateitai es a HMO OO: Oca heme ieee es Satna s neaietragh baNalalos 
AltathO) ae eka cee GROUT Os eee Did Ow OmmOnCe ee ac chee tenes. Rerronel ndinee see | eee 
PACAL EEL ee nae ence eet Oot ai ye ams O10a7 © MOUONLOLO 1550s LO. Cmritanere mnie entices we cor ee ees| clene rene 
PICATOA ig eee bn Vey Sl CTE OU TAS rR nt ere Sy OM ex nN Re ee ad Calendar Round sees eee 
Pea 7 asin ot ae te Main Structure...... ety al Sea ee em ean Calendar Round.....]...... 
DRIP ATA toupee terete Main Structure...... QS POMC Ont: 7021004. 2s al eee as oe secede emer le ates 
DtelasZaene) sete aie (SLOUDLOn baer eee: SANGO £0. 6.550. O00. 65.5 5 Initial Series (?)..... I 
Stelaizcee once. we ana (GKOUD One E aie ee et LOW OrmOn(l) aeeve eet erarcton is a Initial Series (?)..... I 
Stelai20n cece neers a CEOUD) Ose iar CuletOusOwm Onn keer aa cece ere Initial Series........ 3 
MECLAIE AS ts aay pict CSEOUUE Oe. 5 anee.< hae SEO OO. ees ie cine dee a Initial Series........ 2 
tela Oy ever. toe. Main Structure...... Os O.17. 0) 0F10.722-12.0 Initial Series........ 2 
Stclagl Seer ta Oro Uo Re Moke ane ae ea rom Ian fon Noyes Arma irr CA cs oaths Initial Series........ 3 
EERE Fazio. Atel, Main Structure...... GO GLE a totes ound ec atetende Initial Series........ 2 
SCE ame ost aka: SEOUD LO cure ia wets J: GiLOROF Oc prtiya storey tain eee Initial serves tre 3 
BUOGIEL oon 0 om 5A SPOUTS ors 6 ove a ee BG CO) O50 907.0. 0.0.5 cc's Initial Series........ 3 
pica aac) (Aare. SAT Qe oa, So ade) AF Pi ITO I atk os Sha we a Initial Series........ 4 
(Inscribed peccary 

Sktll eae Main Structure...... GN SOF ORS ere OA Ae eee Rerrod) Priding aca. |e eee 
tela 7 tee ce rene kee CSTOUD: Outer rete: S.C POM OMO MEE or alter re ImitialiSenes: 4.442 -- 4 
Stelavkes sectranscae oer Main Structure...... OR EON Oa ihe sid ae eral Initial Series sere 22 4 
Stelartwem nace cenit Main Structure...... OW OTN Co}, (SRO A Ae Ean oA ack: Initial Series........ 4 
Fragments V’....... (GEOUp: OF os..te nis es Barly Seria aerate es eer ae cetdebies pecans +] ehh 
Fragment S’.........| Main Structure...... Prlyc Reta acne ond. a oetete eras «citrate tenerne Se iabe's Fs 

II. Tae Monuments or THE Mipp.e PeEriop. 
ta > Fgh & Spee Se Grete yan ae oe Eee OO... tek oie ad © Sawin nes Initial Series........ 3 
OE iy ae ae ae Main Structure...... fo fags Ma oF e Bete Sir a Se ieee Initial Series........ 4 
Stead 20 cee ape cds ak CSFOUD: £2 30un ae iich « G10 10 4.0 ee ee ee ae ot Initial Series........ 3 
Lo ey fe ane Ge Mn Ee yg & oe ee a g.10. sa Ae RS ee ee Initial Series........ 3 
telare3ee- ee ee (Sroupsize < teecee rere rc Be Wa 1 o> be a Ais WO ra ea Initial oeriess. ss. - 4 
Stelartsemricasieeree e- Group. se eee oe Okt Oy Cel, ce One sales hey Oe Initial Series........ 2 
rE ie en a Bone Main Structure...... CuGTepO MOO sake tion mcinieiee ck: Initial Series.......- 5 
tela eects. ot as Main oiriicturess:, tel) O-LicESs O60. 65.00 ccc se ese « Initial Series........ 4 
East Altar of Stela5..| Group 8............ TE ES OO. ocean tn eae Unrtial, DeMeS co. gs |e cre 
West Altar of Stela 5*| Group 8............ TGs Gi Ore Mees aie oo 6k Initial Series \...344-] 2505. 
Altar of Stela 1*. Main Structure...... G5 250.0. wane tay oie Ses Initial Series. rcs sate stan’ 
ire Ct aN pe cores Main Structure...... LTS ety OO ot are = Anes Initial Series........ 4 
tela One woe ie he RN STOUT Ose te oth sags ns GO: 12, 10,( C0. 5 a bic Ms atecie.s 2s THitial meres. cvcar 4 
Aldan Kemer tias se Main Structure...... GQil2lOs 70a temete sale vere es Enitialas criesee tires |eereneters 
Altar Hine sree Main Structure...... Oe Pg Na he gee Re ne a EnitialsSerieg aan meets tee 
Altar I’ Main Structure...... OeON Oe ers eet es cae t Enitigl Deriegse oe oe bls ane a 
Stela | teem ee Main Structure...... SUL 1Or OO. ona vo eeeuriae. «ee Initial Senes........ 3 
Steba eee ote ee REO he, ciiet esas nee G04. 16, .0:0°0F 0: 14.0,0.0.ccsi0n.) Initial Series; 0... 5 
Fragment. ¥'4.¢ + so. Group So. ies ea. Middle: Penod ints. Gee eens Initial series Cf). o..<4 san « 











587 








588 


THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 





III]. Toe Monuments oF THE GREAT PERIOD. 





Monument. 





Hier. Step of Mound 2 
Hier. Stairway of 
Nicundi26qe 


‘hemple22...es ee 
Trempleiztasneeece 
Rev. stand in West- 

erm Courtesseeee 


Stela’ 8.037 ae 


Altar Geen eee 


Stela 11 




















Provenance. Date. Kind of date. Class. 
Main Structure...... 0.15, 0..0..0,.. one ee Initial Series........ 4 
Main Structure...... 9.15. 0,00, One atenes re haere Initial Series........ 4 
SEOUD Qua care eens EGS OC. -O, oes se ie eee canes Initial Series... <7) -sa0tm 
Main Structure. 4. . 0) O: 1c. S00. we ae eka ee ee Initial Series........ 6 
Main Structure...... 9.35.17 .050 (2). comers nee Period ending:..6 |. 
Main Structure...... 9.16. ¢§.c0; Ocse sons sense nates 16 Initial Series... ene 
Main Structure...... 9.16.) §. Os OAT: nee t sa dinate Initial Series (??)....]...... 
Main Structure...... 6.56u: 8/0 Ough caewes cegramenas Initial Series........ 

Main Structure...... O°16. 1020s On ue nee eae eas Initial Series........ 

Main Structure...... Q:L0.E3,-O.a8 thinness: ae Calendar Round.....]...... 
Main Structure...... 9.16.10. 0. O to 9.17.0.0.0 (f)...| Calendar Round.....|...... 
Main Structure: ...- 9.16.10. 0. 0 to 9.17.0.0.0 (?)...} Calendar Round (?) .}...... 
Main Structure...... we Cane Mgey At Brewer Seer. Calendar Round....a4 70a 
Main Structure...... 16.12. 6.07 cmt os. aetna at ae Calendar Round.....|...... 
Main Structure...... §.16.12..5. 1% eee ing aes tee Calendar Round.,...3) ee 
SOUR 0, ayers ee G:30:12.55.87 ice nee eee ae Calendar Round. ....3) eee 
Main Structure...... GIG 1206. 195. el ae eee 2 Initial Series. . .. <0}. eee 
Main Structure...... 9.16.12. 5.17 to 9.17.0.0.0 Calendar Round.....|...... 
Main Structure...... G27 0; 0,20. 75. 2h ee caieaaie oe Period Ending: .....95hupeee 
Main Structure...... OTFL0..0. On are, etre eae Period Ending;. .. xs) sean 
Main Structure...... 0.4750. 0: Bayar ee ee Period Ending... 2:2).amene 
Main Structure...... SIF P06 0. ies (eae oe eee ore Period Ending...... Pree. 
Main Structure...... O19 Ss WOO, ae bets ewe ge oe Period Ending... <5 |a.naeae 
Group 6005). ee ner ONT FINE Op Oa, are ss See Period Ending... « «sts ame 
GEOUT 0. eh cate tes S07 CS RAT cea eae ono eee Calendar Round. -2,.1-.gne 
Grolip Ova pease nes 0:27.172.55297 (5). eee eee ee Initial Series. .!.. 5...) eae 
STOUR. IO te eesti ka 7h De (ORs ted siser cae eae Calendar Round..... 2 
Main Structure...... QN78S. Oy Gok tagcat olen Period Ending....... 5 
Main Structure...... 0.17.12.j07 0.400 nso a Sere Period Ending....... 6 
Main Structure...... O17 ILLIAOR days e eee Calendar Round..... 6 
Main Structure...... COENEN ER ORS era ee Initial. Series*......... << 6 
Main Structure...... OT Bs Gu Oh Sion Ss eee Period Ending <.....:)3se 
Main Structure...... 9.16. $2 Od, 2. bancn cae eee Period Ending ......]...... 
Main Structure...... 9. 1B MOu Gs ithel est i ass Oo aes Period Ending .......«}as«sh- 
Main Structure (?) ..| 9.18. 0. 0. o 5 Cf) a hava cobeiinyananete tea tot I ee MSUsnen © Brenna eos ee eae 
Main Structure...... 9. PF Be Oy OAR ae nei ee ke Period Ending (?).. 6 
Main Structure..... Great Period sy, . 0% <4 0) oe os oes mie Ore os eee te 
Main Structure...... 9.16.14.16, 6.08 9.E7<i5< O,0:41) 4]. cae ea eres ere ee 
Main Structure...... 9.27.4. LL TAL) cambe osetia ae Calendar Round.....]...... 
Main Structure...... 9.15. 4.17. I or 9.17.17.12.1 (f) "| Calendar Round?..( 7). eee 
Main Structure...... Great. Period ¢./.4%5/+seu5 aducenel pale tel eo ene aoe ee 
(GrouphiG nee ee Great Period 5.2.bh nesses oes & legen tance oe 
Group). centagator Great Pertod....2i540 fo28 st oaaelas ante eee oe + eee 
Group ’%icts destes oe Great Period (2) 2.954% 02 9.4 a aleroe Cae ec ee 
CITQUDA tay, se eae Great Period 





I. Monuments of the Early Period 
II. Monuments of the Middle Period 
III. Monuments of the Great Period 





086 6 M.g Oe 10 6 wre OS 646 Lew 0 Haye ee 6 &) Ale 0 9! e! @ s/n) 0s we) s) Chale lp oka 


© Oe S08; 0s, 0 (wb 01s) e One els ae 0 18. OSES 6 Coe io TS, wb «Baie 0 2 6 se, pee imliae & 


616 6 © elt © bie ce vuole & we = 6 «Ole ©. v8 ce me « ple so sel 6 bis (© ine minis wie 


20000 0 6 6 6s ve Sc 6 6,8 6.0 0 616 6 010 eae es @ sie his mins bo 618 )s'@ 6 /eQe |v Ole an oie Mee, wl bie bie ns aie 6 








‘This makes a total of 59 Initial Series at Copan exclusive of what may have been destroyed by the collapse 
of the Hieroglyphic Stairway, but inclusive of the very doubtful Initial Series on Temple 26. 


APPENDIX X. 


LIST OF THE DAY-SIGNS AND MONTH-SIGNS FOUND IN THE COPAN 
INSCRIPTIONS. 


The following list of the day and month-signs found in the inscriptions of 
Copan is nearly, although not quite, exhaustive. It is believed to be complete for 
all the texts described in Chapters II, III, and IV, with the single exception of the 
Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26, the utterly ruinous condition of which makes 
it impossible to identify and classify all of its day and month-signs. Of this 
important text, the longest in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum, only such day 
and month-signs as occur in the 28 dates described in pages 237-274 are included 
below. Further study of the disconnected fragments would doubtless yield other 
identifiable day and month-signs, but it would in no way alter the great preponder- 
ance of the day-sign Ahau noticeable below, and no attempt has been made to 
include the day and month-signs on these fragments. 

Nor has any attempt been made to include the signs for Ahau and Imix when 
these occur in passages other than where they denote specific days, which is not 
infrequently the case. These two characters doubtless had other meanings. Thus, 
for example, in at least two inscriptions, Stela C (north side) at Quirigua,! and Stela 
1’ at Piedras Negras, the Ahau-sign inverted is used as a sign for the kin or day, the 
lowest unit of the Maya chronological system. Again, in two other inscriptions, 
Stela 1 at Aguas Calientes and Stela 2 at Cancuen, neither of which has been pub- 
lished, Imix is the main part of the sign for the month Mac, as in the Dresden 
Codex.* On Altar S here at Copan it has already been suggested (page 229) that 
a combination of the two signs may indicate the close of one time-period and the 
beginning of the next. Such uses as the foregoing clearly lie without the range of 
day-signs proper, and, as noted above, have not been included in the following list. 

Of the 158 day-signs included in this list, 104, or very nearly 60 per cent., are 
Ahau; this is to be explained by the fact that all units of Maya chronology above 
the kin ended on some day Ahau, and the preponderance of period-endings over all 
other kinds of Maya dates accounts for the great majority of the day-signs recorded 
being Ahau. 

Three day-signs, Imix, Akbal, and Ix, have not been found in the Copan 
inscriptions at all, although they are by no means unknown elsewhere, particularly 
Imix, which is fairly common. 

All of the 19 divisions of the haab are represented in the Copan inscriptions 
except Uayeb, the closing period, and so far as the writer is aware, the sign for this 
month occurs only thrice in the Corpus Inscriptionum Mayarum—twice at Palen- 
que, inthe Temple of the Foliated Cross (see Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. rv, plate 80, 
ps) and in the Temple of the Inscriptions (zbid., plate 59, 93), and once at Naranjo 
(see Maler, 1908, plate 30, 1, second glyph on the staff, and Morley, 1909, p. 549). 
This period was composed of 5 days, and, as compared with all the other divisions 
of the haab, the 18 months of 20 days each, it was only quarter as long as any one 
of them. Therefore, in the very nature of the case, Uayeb should be found on an 
average, only one-fourth as many times as any other division of the haab. Asa 








1See Maudslay, 1889-1902, vol. 11, plate 19, Glyph e. *See Maler, 1901, plate 12, F3. 
3See Bowditch, 1910, plate 8. 3 
9 





mes 


THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


matter of fact, however, its actual occurrence is very much less even than this, and 
it almost seems as though there had been a deliberate attempt to refrain from 
recording this particular month in the inscriptions. 

Says Pio Pérez in speaking of these 5 days: 


“Some call them u yail kin, or u yatl haab, which may be translated, the sorrowful 
and laborious days or part of the year; for they [the Maya] believed that in them occurred 
sudden deaths and pestilences, and that they were diseased by poisonous animals, or 
devoured by wild beasts, fearing that if they went into the field to their labors, some tree 
would pierce them, or some other kind of misfortune happen to them.”! 


This belief alone may have been sufficient to account for the observed rarity 
with which Uayeb appears in the inscriptions, very much less in fact than any other 
division of the haab, even discounting its shorter length. 

In the following table the first and third columns give the names of the monu- 
ments on which the day and month-signs will be found, and the second and fourth 
columns give their exact positions on the monuments after the method of glyph 
designation described in Chapter I, page 50. 


List of the Day-signs in the Copan Inscriptions. 





























Day- Day- 
den Monument. Glyph. agad 

Ahau..| Altar K’ One end (?) ~ Ahau.. 

Altar 28). 2 - pcoeeene H2 

Scelarasivs7 iss eae ee Lower left corner. 

Stela 24. us.te coe BS. 

Stelai i672. 208 sere c3b. 

Btela Ley ueck ene ten BO. 

Inscribed peccary skull.| At. 

Stelao. ch sack eoeeeee BS. 

Stela7. ..-atctnentee BSa. 

Stela’ Bivedar tema c2, Lh 

Stela Be) Secs c13,1.h 

Stela Foo; so, ae ae DIO, u. h 

Stela dc. 1,0) eee p12, l.h 

AltariofStelai hese FID. 

Stela -Pca> tae ASa 

Stela 12.0 7. see BS. 

Stela Id co. acteeee eee cio. 

Stela 3325s eee BSD. 

Stela 12. eee csb. 

Stela 36,20 c:ges ae Aga 

Stela. 16. fsagcene ees ce 

Altar ofistela 19 s.r eos 

Stela 23559 oe ELD 

Stela‘2445. 0 cee G7 

ptela It. skeen B8. 

Stela-29 5 oa Next to last glyph. 

Stele 3). ongeset eee BOD. | 

Collar of Stela 3....... Pe * ee 

Stelast ies sd. Meee (oh 

Stela' a, Shs scores p6a. 

East Altar of Stelas. ..| Ka. 

West Altar of Stela5. ..| N2a, I. h. 

West Altar of Stelag ..| o1d. 

Altatiofotela tee e sae Id. 

Stola:] os See ae ee BSD. 

Stela Le Loree eee Cla. 

Altar.of Stela I; 2.4.4.5 cb. 

Altaz.ot Stela 17-53, Ed. 

Stela Ov. ese en tes B4D. 





Monument. 


Stela }to.cs <2 seanerent 


Stéla Je. asses 
Stela’ J eee 


Stela’ 6.44.5. ieee 


A ledirs Wea fen cetera 
Hieroglyphic Stairway. 


Hieroglyphic Stairway. . 
Hieroglyphic Stairway. . 
Hieroglyphic Stairway. . 
Hieroglyphic Stairway. . 


Hieroglyphic Stairway. . 
Serla Ms. sci eens 


‘Templestt@ nas oo ose 
‘Lemple 3% 6,i2/ocnnaces 
Temple 214.5... 0es-- 

"Lemplt 21a. es on aces 


A. 
Step D, vb. 
Step O, pd. 
Step R, Ba. 
Step S, M. 
Date 21, B 
Date 22, cb. 
B2b. 


ob. 


Rev. stand West. Court} a4. 
Rey. stand West. Court] gb. 


1See Stephens, 1843, vol. 1, p. 437, and Landa, 1864, p. 384. 


— 





LIST OF DAY-SIGNS AND MONTH-SIGNS IN THE COPAN 


Day- 


sign. 


Ahau.. 


Chicchan 


Cimi... 


Mantk. 
Lamat. . 








INSCRIPTIONS. 


List of the Day-signs in the Copan inscriptions—continued. 


Monument. 


Glyph. 


Rev. stand West. Court] v. 


Rev. stand West. Court| £’4. 


Al CateZ rn acters fou 


MemipleilLs. eee se 


Not represented. 
Altar of Stela13....... 
Pedestal of StelaN..... 


PRUCAND SACL Seas cove > hiase’s 
Hieroglyphic Stairway. . 
Hieroglyphic Stairway. . 
Hieroglyphic Stairway.. 
7 oe Ea Ue a ai a 
Hieroglyphic Stairway. . 
AI Gare rete seine cle 
Hieroglyphic Stairway.. 
ite Coe © bee ae ae Se 
Se clae Pa) Saco ee tos 


B2. 


Loe aps 

Step E, sd (?). 
Step F, pb. 
Date 26, fig. 41. 
Al. 

Date 23, Dd. 

A. 
Date 15, Dd. 























List of the Month-signs in the Copan inscriptions. 


Monument. 


Hieroglyphic Stairway 
Pedestal of Stela N.... 


Altat Geneecat trot 





Glyph. 


jo. 


Step Q, a. 
B2. 





591 








Day- 
hon Monument. Glyph. 

EGtiidi ACA. Kinece 3 fetes ce: C2 
Stel ar ees see cies a 20% 
Hieroglyphic Step, 

ETT Be ae oe ea G2. 
Hieroglyphic Stairway..| Step D, sa. 
Hieroglyphic Stairway..| Step E. pb. 
Hieroglyphic Stairway..| Date 24, Gd. 
Hieroglyphic Stairway..| Gordon 1902, pl. 

Teas Cas 
WeMIPll BZ: a2 seks cs A, u. h. 

Muluce\pAltartie ete. Joes rece: Danian: 
Hieroglyphic Stairway..| Step I, Q. 
Hieroglyphic Stairway..} Step K, ad. 
Hieroglyphic Stairway..| Step L, a. 

Oc. Hieroglyphic Stairway .| Step P, ma. 
Hieroglyphic Stairway..| Step Q, md. 

Chuen..| Altar of StelaI........| ja. 

WE RECN Sry ee ava ela 5 BID, u. h. 

Eb. Altar U eo KORs 
flemplets 2. epee see P2. 

Ben.. Arca Os eects sce ek s 

gem Not represented. 

Men....| Pedestal of StelaN..... Al. 

Pedestal of StelaN.....| Br. 

Care Al Leniple Liss cle se coeur H7. 

Caban. .| Hieroglyphic Stairway..| Date 27, B. 
AltareViecee ca.06 wane C2t 
IN Gati rer tet eines AI 
Al tare ere ce eke eee Al. 

Altar: DEN aan ore oat KI 

‘Templesii.c..2coseee Al. 

Templewtin sscectcn ie BO. 

VN Keev at 0). Fae cee acinar Front, top glyph. 

Altar Os mes teers AI. 

Altar les. Ge eos ae Front, head of left 
figure. 

Aliarn Eats nae: Front, head of 
right figure. 

Stelaine vc. daatcuse c+ Al. 

edaht Punitarerds see. cakoeeee Al. 

Cauac..| Hieroglyphic Stairway..| Step H, a (?). 
Hieroglyphic Stairway..| Step H, 0 (?). 
Hieroglyphic Stairway..} Step K, Ed. 

Month- Monument. Glyph. 

sign. 

Ea Mee REIS Paes nk ec tae Rees Cr 
Altar of Stela E....... E2b. 

Altar of StelaI........ ED. 
Altartl emcee oan: ED, |. h 
Altar (eee a nee vee eke £6, l.h 
tela Geer re eee B7D, 
Dieta Ges wae She BIID 

PAE ec ECA Eka 5 erin lee ag BI, |. h 
Altar Onte te eerie: HD. 

Dela Desa pamh ay aclea AIS 

















592 


Month- 


sign. 


Lipo 


L0tha ten 


pecs 


Xul. watts 


Yaxkin. 


Mol... . 











THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


List of the Month-signs in the Copan inscriptions—continued. 





Monument. 


Rev. stand West. Court 
Rev. stand West. Court 
Al tars jeer sree ore 


Alig To. ek anten tered 
Hier. Step, Mound 2... 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 

Stela M55 a aaa eon 


Hieroglyphic Stairway 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 
Altar of Seela Is tee 
Hieroglyphic 
Mound 2.40 ooeee 
Stela' 1622) 4 wee 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 
Stela tod. 2.22 eoee 
Stel 234 Fete Sees 
West Altar of Stelas... 
Altarotstelalteee ree 


East Altar of Stela 5... 
West Altar of Stelas5... 
AltariH soe 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 


Temple 11 
Altar.() eae ae 


Altar of Stela 19...... 
Stela' Dix5 uae ee oe 











Glyph. 


KI. 

BI. 

VI. 

Front, in hand of 
right figure. 

A2. 

HI. 

E3. 

B74. 

C2: 

BOD. 

Na, u. h. 

1), u. h. 

H2. 

Step D, 1. 

Aja. 

BQ. 

DIO, |. h. 

Date 23, E. 

Step R, Bd. 

Step S, N. 

Da. 


No. 

C3a. 
Step H, pd. 
Agb. 

14. 

N2b. 

1b. 

A2. 

B. 

BI. 

A4. 

Dob. 

1b. 

D2a. 

Gb, u. h. 


Gordon, 1902, pl. 
12, L, sixth block. 


p2d. 

BI. 

LT. 

MI. 

BID. 

B7. 

Front,bot’m glyph. 
Front, in hand of 

left figure. 





axe 




















Month- 


sign. 


Loe 





Cena. 


Mac... 





Kankin. 
Muan.. 


Pax 


Kayab . 


Cumhu 





Uayeb.. 


Monument. 


Stelgid ct okey seen ee 
Altar Gidtius ana 
Stela Tse nen eee 
Stela,t2 2.0 aes 


Altar Giant 2 tayo te 
Teinple ttc: ones 
Sreta. 02. sk .encnaeeny 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 
Stela. Basa umes came: 


Hieroglyphic Stairway 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 


sib a @) o 6 6) Bee) @hegeue 


Stela: 6. scene 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 


Steals Teta cccasien ha eee 
Stelz' 14.30, cone cee 
tela Ari un heres et 
Hieroglyphic Stairway 

Hieroglyphic Stairway 

Templeata.c..55..5-. 
Rev. stand West. Court 
Rev. stand West. Court 


Not represented. 





AQ. 
Step D, sd. 
Step E, ua. 
fen 

B. 
BI. 
c2b. 

Date 15, Ed. 
Step K, Bd. 
Step L, cd. 


A8a. 


Date 21, ca. 
Step P, pa. 
Pa. 





APPENDIX XI. 
A DESCRIPTION OF THE RUINS OF COPAN, BY JUAN GALINDO, IN 1834.1 


REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC Commission APPOINTED TO MAKE A SURVEY OF THE 
ANTIQUITIES OF CoPAN IN CoMPLIANCE WITH A Decree Datep JANUARY IS, 
1834, Issu—eD By Dr. Mariano GALvez, CoMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE 
STATE OF GUATEMALA. 

Copan, June 19, 1834. 

Citizen Secretary of the General Office of the 

Supreme Government of the State of Guatemala: 


I have the honor to submit to you the following statement of the investiga- 
tions which I have been able to carry out among the ruins of this old city and the 
neighboring country, in compliance with the mission by which I was honored by 
that Supreme Government on the 16th of January ultimo. 

It is impossible for us to fix in an accurate manner the beginning of the exis- 
tence of the planet which we inhabit; nevertheless, we can clearly see that since 
that epoch it has undergone great changes. Water used to cover what is now dry 
land, whole races of gigantic creatures have disappeared, and tropical animals 
inhabited the boreal regions. 

Of all the living species of the globe, that to which we belong is the one which 
particularly attracts our attention. Man appears in six different races, namely, 
the American Indian, the Esquimaux, the Tartar, the Malay, the African, and the 
Caucasian, and among all these the oldest 1s undoubtedly the Indian. The mis- 
taken and foolish pride of the descendants of the Caucasian makes them claim 





1The manner in which the original manuscript of the Galindo report on the ruins of Copan fell into the writer’s 
hands after the first chapter of this book was already in galley proof is so unusual as to warrant a brief account of 
this timely discovery by way of a preface to the report itself, a translation of which into English is given here. 

Colonel Juan Galindo was an officer in the service of the government of Central America, and previous to 
his visit to Copan in 1834 had been commandant at Flores, in the Department of Peten, where he had also under- 
taken other archzological investigations. (See page 18.) 

In April 1834, he was sent to Copan by the government of Central America to make an official report on the 
ruins, and while there he wrote several letters to scientific societies and periodicals both in Europe and America, 
notably to The London Literary Gazette and Journal of Belles Lettres, Arts and Sciences (see Galindo, 1835); The 
American Antiquarian Society (see Galindo, 18354); and The Société de Géographie de Paris (see Galindo, 1836 and 
18362). 

All three of these letters were written under the same date, June 19, 1834 (the same date as that of his report, 
see above), and in the one to the American Antiquarian Society he states that he was engaged in the preparation 
of a report which “the Government of Central America intends publishing” (Galindo, 18354, p. 545). 

This report, however, never seems to have been published, and its existence was only known through the above 
letters. Indeed, after a protracted search for it in the government archives in Guatemala City, during which the 
writer enlisted the aid of his friend, the Licenciado Don Adrian Recinos, Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs in the 
government of Guatemala, he reluctantly reached the conclusion that it had been destroyed in one of the many 
revolutions which had swept over Guatemala since Galindo’s time, and in Chapter I of the original manuscript of 
this volume had so stated. 

Last summer (August 1919), during the course of a visit to Baltimore, where Mr. William Gates, of Point 
Loma, California, then had his large collection of Maya manuscripts housed, the latter placed in the writer’s hands 
a folio manuscript of 46 pages in Spanish, which he said he had received from abroad several years ago. 

This manuscript proved to be none other than the long-lost original of the Galindo report on his mission to 
Copan, written in Galindo’s own handwriting at Copan on June 19, 1834. It was directed to Dr. Mariano Galvez, 
then Commander-in-Chief of the State of Guatemala, and the 25 figures, which had formerly accompanied it— 
maps, drawings of the monuments, etc., direct reference to which is frequently made in the text of the report—had 
been removed before it came into the possession of Mr. Gates. 

Where this report had lain hidden all those 80 years, and how it came into the hands of the collector from 
whom it was purchased by Mr. Gates, it has been impossible tc ascertain, but the writer regards it as a peculiarly 
happy coincidence that it was “rediscovered” in the Gates collection during the past summer, and that the owner 
has graciously consented to its publication here for the first time. 


593 


594 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
the greatest antiquity, when, in reality, they are the youngest. In a comparatively 
recent epoch they migrated from the Caucasian Mountains, took possession of 
Europe, and have been able to spread themselves throughout the greater part of 
America, and, aided by the strength of their youth and talent, they are now invad- 
ing Asia and Africa. The Indian race, on the contrary, is in a decrepit old age, 
having passed many centuries ago through youth, civilization, and even decadence. 

The North Americans solved the problem by beheading the unfortunate 
natives of the continent, or driving them away to the west, where they gradually 
perished.! The new governments of that part of America that formerly was Spanish 
admitted them into their societies and endeavored to have them share the benefits 
of civilization; but this policy, though it honored its authors, will be useless. The 
Indian race is in the last centuries of its age, and soon will disappear from the earth. 

As a general rule, power and civilization travel westward. Looking for their 
origin toward the East, we go from France to Greece, from the latter to Egypt, to 
China, and, finally, we come to America in the fartherest eastern end. China, the 
oldest nation of the Trans-Pacific Hemisphere, is about to disappear, and perhaps 
will become a colony of a far-distant island. The Indian race, which was the ances- 
tor of China or Tartary in the evolution of civilization, has in a greater degree than 
China reached an old age incapable of regeneration. We see this clearly in Central 
America. The extensive Mosquito Coast, inhabited by natives who are entirely 
free from foreign domination, surrounded by civilized colonies and states, and in 
spite of the fact that the English authorities have endeavored to educate the chil- 
dren of their leading men, that people are still in a state of most degrading bar- 
barism. 

It is necessary to consider the Indian race in olden times in order to render 
to it the respect it deserves; it is necessary to state other facts in order to destroy 
the fullest vanity of the white or Caucasian race of being the mother of the Indian 
race or the origin of its civilization. We have seen that this is, by analogy, the 
oldest human species of the globe; if we admit the blunder that the Indians descend 
from the Africans or the Europeans, and that the climate has changed the color of 
their skin, how is it, then, that the American Indian preserves in all climates the 
same bronze color? If the climate of the West Indies darkened the descendant of 
the European, the snowy mountains of Canada, Quito, and Patagonia should have 
turned their skin into the same whitish color. If the old nations of the Trans- 
Atlantic hemisphere should have had authentic information concerning these 
regions, they would have communicated it to posterity. Some learned men of that 
hemisphere, even before Columbus, suspected that there were lands here, just as 
we reasonably suppose that there are such in the center of the unknown portion of 
the Southern Ocean. But why should we endeavor to make the American a de- 
scendant of the other continent? Is it possible that there have come thence the 
tapir, the llama, and so many other animals of the hot lands of the American tropics? 
There is no trace of their race in the other hemisphere, and it is impossible that 
whole species or kinds of animals should come without leaving behind a single 
specimen of their race. They could not have come swimming by sea; from the 
north they could not have arrived, at least in the present state of the globe, because 
the cold would have killed them. No man could have brought ferocious wild 
animals in ships. 

Based on these reasons and other data, I establish the two following epochs of 
American civilization: Of the primitive, as is to be supposed because of its antiquity, 





‘This is an interesting commentary upon our treatment of the Indians, written 85 years ago by a foreigner, 
who felt himself under no obligations to refrain from telling the truth as he saw it. 


DESCRIPTION OF COPAN BY GALINDO. 595 


there remain no tangible traces whatever. Its destruction must be attributed to 
an horrible convulsion of the world, to plagues, hunger, to a barbarous invasion 
of the extremities of the continent, or perhaps to an uprising of the slaves. The 
colonies, or remains of this primitive civilization, having passed to the eastern 
coast of Asia, prepared the enlightenment of Japan and of China, and this primitive 
civilization, although dispersed, likewise left traces for the second. 

The Chinese, Hindus, Persians, Chaldeans, and Egyptians all were very much 
alike in their character and other characteristics, which indicates a common origin 
which may be looked for in America, and perhaps the Sanskrit language originates 
in this continent. America lapsed into barbarism, and one century after the destruc- 
tion of Rome by the barbarians of the North, there appeared from our northern 
region the Toltecs, bringing with them some enlightenment and a partial civiliza- 
tion, and who settled around Anahuac and founded an empire. Later on the Incas 
of Peru endeavored to revive the old American civilization. 

The Toltecs came imbued with the remembrances of the first epoch of enlight- 
enment which the ancients perhaps left on their journey toward the west. Their 
conquests and the colonies of the Toltecs were extended to Central America; they 
mixed their language and customs with those already existing in these regions and 
formed several states. 

From the analogy of their language, writing, and places where sacrifices were 
made, it is deduced that Copan originated from a Toltec colony, and that its king 
dominated the country extending to the east of that of the Mayas, or Yucatan, 
reaching from the Gulf of Honduras almost to the Pacific Ocean, and comprising 
an area of over 10,000 square miles, at present included in the modern States of 
Guatemala, Honduras, and Salvador. 

Throughout this extent of land the Chorti language was spoken and is still 
spoken, and from these and other data it is inferred that the peoples of Cuagini- 
quilapa, Los Esclavos, Quesaltepeque, San Jacinto, Santa Elena, San Estéban, 
San Juan Ermita or del Rio, Jocotan, Camotan, San José, Chimalapa, Sacapa, and 
San Pablo, in the State of Guatemala, formed a part of this empire. Chiquimula 
and Esquipulas were governed by subordinate princes of the King of Copan. In 
Honduras, Omoa, the mineral district of San Andrés, Sensenti, Ocotepeque, Tipalpa, 
La Brea, and other places were comprised in their dominions. In Salvador the 
same empire comprised Texis, Dulce Nombre, Metapas, Tejutla, and Sitala. 

The large city of Copan, Copante, or Copantli was the capital of the nation 
and residence of the monarch, being situated at 14° 45’ north latitude and 90° 52’ 
west longitude from Greenwich.! This city is built on the right bank of the river 
of the same name, extending along said river a distance of over a mile and a half 
(see map No. 1).2. Hills and mounds of unwrought quarried stones indicate the 
site of the city and of the principal buildings, all of which have fallen. In all that 
place there are found obelisks, some standing and many lying on the ground, 
wrought tables, busts, and several fragments of statuary and earthenware. 

The principal and highest building was the temple (see plan No. 2), built at 
the eastern end of the city and perpendicular to the bank of the river. They used 








1Galindo’s latitude is approximately correct, but his longitude is more than 160 kilometers too far west. A longi- 
tude of go° 52’ west would locate Copan in the western part of Guatemala, not far from Santa Cruz Quiché. See 


age I, note I. 
Ke 2As already noted at the beginning of this Appendix, all the illustrations, maps, and drawings in Galindo’s 
report had been removed therefrom before it came into Gates’s hands in 1918. The writer suspects that the “ten 
drawings well enough executed,” mentioned in Galindo, 1836, p. 268 (see page 19, note 1), and seen by Hamy as 
as late as 1886 in the archives of the Société de Géographie at Paris, are some of the original illustrations of this 
report, or at least duplicates thereof, which Galindo himself sent to France. The numbers, which follow, are 


Galindo’s references to his own illustrations, now unfortunately separated from his report. 


596 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


to ascend from the neighboring plain to all the eminences and places where sacri- 
fices were made, by steps which in many places are now deteriorated and lost. 

The little plaza [the Eastern Court] surrounding the church is 21 yards above the 
level of the river, and ascent from it is made also by steps which surround it on 
four sides to the place of sacrifice, to the north, to the west, and to the precipice 
on the bank of the river. (This is shown from the opposite side of the river under 
No. 3.) It is a wall of partially quarried stone, the height of which, as now shown, 
is 47 yards. It contains three openings, called windows, the principal and highest 
of which, wherein the body of a man can be placed, is 1 yard and 13 inches high 
and 30 inches at its greatest width. (See fig. 4.) (I estimate the vara or yard at 
32 inches, and the latter is a half inch longer than the Castillian vara or yard.) It 
is constructed, without mortar, of large quarried stones, and extends directly into 
the hill at the same level and size until it terminates at the same height as the floor 
of the little plaza, and communicates only with the latter; it 1s difficult to guess 
its use, because it evidently was not used for drainage. ‘The window farthest to 
.the north can not be entered on account of its small size, inasmuch as the bottom 
thereof being filled with earth, constituting a solid terrace, there is only left an 
aperture 16 inches wide by 8 inches high. The window nearest the water is larger, 
but is filled in a yard from its mouth or opening. The whole of said wall is very 
much deteriorated and broken up, although it still has two whole sections built of 
small, square stones. 

Among many excavations, I made one at a place ending in the small plaza 
[the Eastern Court], where the highest window is located. First I encountered the 
opening of this window, and excavating to a greater depth, we entered a sepulchral 
chamber, the floor of which is 4 yards and g inches lower than that of the small 
plaza. It is 2 yards and 6 inches high, 2 yards wide, and 3 yards and 1g inches 
long, extending directly from north to south, in accordance with the compass, which 
in these countries has a variation of 9° to the east. The outline of its form is 
shown in No. 5. It has two niches on each side which are 18 inches high from the 
floor and which are 16 inches deep, 19 inches high and 28 inches wide, and both the 
niches and the floor of the sepulcher were filled with pieces of red earthenware 
coated with tar, such as dishes, wash-bowls, frying-pans, and pitchers. I took out 
more than 50 of superior workmanship, and some of these were full of human bones, 
mixed with lime, sharp razors, and with a material that the Mexicans used to call 
“Ttzli,”’ with a small head (see No. 6), which seemed to represent the head of a 
corpse, the eyes almost closed, the lower jaw fallen, and protruding lips, there being 
many symmetrical holes in the back, as for hanging or shaking the same, the whole 
head being made of a fine stone covered with green enamel,! the same as two 
strings of beads which I also found in the vault, together with many shells of 
snails and oysters, which undoubtedly were brought from the sea in compliance 
with some superstition. Besides, there were stalactites brought from some cave 
to be deposited here. The whole floor of the subterranean vault was filled with 
fragments of bones, and under them there was a layer of lime on the solid pavement 
of stone. The stones from which this vault is constructed are 10 inches thick and 
10 inches wide and long, and were not set in mortar. 

To the west of the square and a little above the steps, there is the gigantic 
bust (No. 7), called by the common people “The Bull”; it is 2 yards high, although 
the crest is made of stone separated from the head.?. On the same steps, but a little 
below and in the direction of the place where sacrifices were performed, there is a 





1Galindo here doubtless refers to jade. *See Stephens, 1841, vol. 1, plate facing page 143. 


DESCRIPTION OF COPAN BY GALINDO. 597 


gigantic monster the shape of which resembles that of a large toad standing, with 
human arms and the claws of a tiger.! } 

The steps of the temple generally are 12 inches high and more than half a yard 
deep, with an inward inclination; the first two, which lead from the plaza or square 
upwar to the place where the sacrifices were performed, are of the aforesaid size, 
but the others are from 1.5 to 2 yards high. From the side of the narrow pass to 
the third step the wall of the place where sacrifices were performed is perpendicular. 
On the other side of the latter there is an obelisk, 3 yards and 22 inches high [Stela 
P]. On its western front there is worked in semi-relief figure No. 11; on the opposite 
side there are two perpendicular rows of double squares with characters and on 
each side appears the same thing, but with single squares. (No. 18 represents one 
of the latter.) ‘The whole column is whitewashed, and over it can still be seen parts 
of the red color which in ancient times must have covered the whole stone, but 
which water and time have caused to disappear almost entirely. 

A short distance to the left of this obelisk there is a kind of solid table, very 
remarkable, somewhat raised from the ground, together with other smaller stones 
[Altar Q]. It is 1 yard and 23 inches long, is of the same width, and is 27 inches 
thick or high; the upper part is divided into 49 squares with characters, having a 
cornice 4 inches thick, and surrounding the 4 faces of the table there are 16 human 
figures, seated on cushions or benches, with legs crossed, and with fans, or some- 
thing else which I can not accurately describe, in their hands, as drawn and shown 
in Nos. 20, 21, 22, and 23. On the steps which lead up from the place where the 
table is situated to the place where sacrifices are performed [Mound 16, plate 6], 
there are many gigantic skulls carved on the extremities of large loose stones. 

To the left of the place where sacrifices are performed there is a solid stone, 
the exterior shape of which resembles that of a canoe; No. 9 shows its outline, while 
No. Io represents its upper surface. It is 1 yard and 20 inches high, 26.5 inches 
wide, and 29 inches in thickness or height. 

Near to the corner of this pyramid of sacrifice [Mound 16] there is found a 
rectangular table or stone [Altar H’], elevated above the ground like that already 
described [Altar Q] by smaller stone supports; it is 2 varas 21 inches long, and I 
vara 20 inches wide, and 13 inches thick or high; three sides of its edge contain 
characters, which are in squares (casillas) four to a block; figure 17 represents one 
of these rectangular groups; the edges of the stone thus contain 24 squares on the 
long side, and 16 on the smaller sides; the other long side, which faces south, and the 
top and bottom are plain. At the other side of the canoe there is a stone, or table, 
similar to the last described, but very broken [Altar I’]. 

The three tables referred to [Altars Q, H’, and I’|—the one called canoe and 
the obelisk [Stela P]—are found in the plan on the level of the little plaza [the 
Western Court], and from thence descent is made toward the south and west to the 
ground. From the northern side ascent is made by steps to a part of the temple 
whose height is equal to that of the place of sacrifice, and exceeds that of the river 
wall [Temple 11]. At the foot of this elevation, on the level of the ground and near 
the corner which the temple forms to the northwest, is another obelisk with human 
figures on its front and back, and a row of smaller figures on the two sides, with 
evidence of all having been of a red color [Stela N].. In front it has a small altar or 
circular table at a distance of 2 yards. 

In the narrow passageway of the temple is a circular stone 1 yard 4 inches in 
diameter and 16 inches thick. Although it somewhat resembles a millstone, but as 





1This gigantic monster resembling a toad is one of the pair of rampant jaguar figures which flank the Jaguar 
Stairway on the west side of the Eastern Court, at the Main Structure. 


598 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


it has not a hole in the center, I do not divine its use [possibly the altar of Stela 1]. 
There are other circular stones among the ruins of more or less the same size and 
some of them with holes in their middles. 

Some distance from the temple toward the northwest there are five obelisks 
still standing (see No. 24), the northernmost, at the foot of a great fallen edifice 
(Mound 2], has on the face opposite the building the representation of a man [Stela 
D]. It should be borne in mind that all of the standing figures have the hands 
resting in the same manner, across the breast, and the shoulders are not well 
delineated. The sides of the obelisk are curiously wrought and the back is divided 
into 16 squares, wider than they are high, each one containing one or two little 
figures squatting in various postures. Hard or fine stones are encountered set in 
the obelisk... The latter and other works of the ruins are of a soft kind of stone, 
but, nevertheless, it is admirable how the ancient architects wrought them, they 
being ignorant, as is known, of the use of iron. Did they work with chisels of gold 
or silver, or did they use chisels of chaya? In front of this column there 1s an altar 
or iene table with corners toward the principal figure and 5 yards distant from it. 

To the south of this obelisk there 1s another, whose eastern face contains 
figure No. 14, and in the opposite face the drawing No. 15 [Stela B]. The height 
of the stone is 4 yards, the width is 1 yard 13 inches, and the thickness 1 yard 4 
inches. The sides contain squares with characters (hieroglyphics). Itis seen that 
the figure of this obelisk, like the others, has bracelets on the wrists and ankles, the 
feet have sandals tied on them, the laces passing between the first, second, third, and 
fourth toes. The dress of this figure extends only to the upper part of the thigh. 

A little to the south, and close to another fallen building [Mound 4], there is 
an obelisk [Stela A], the back of which contains the characters shown in No. 16, 
which are placed in double squares, that is to say, 2 in each quadrangle. Those 
which appear in the lower row are no longer legible. The Indian writing found 
among all these relics is quite interesting, especially because heretofore we did not 
know that the art of writing was known on this continent before the voyage of Co- 
lumbus. ‘This writing is hieroglyphic-phonetic, representing sounds, and 1s greatly 
superior to the paintings of the Mexicans and the symbolic hieroglyphics of the 
Egyptians, which only represented things.?, A human figure appears on the front 
of this obelisk, and on each of the two sides there are 2 single rows of squares with 
characters; its height is 3 yards 21 inches, 1 yard 2 inches wide, and 1 yard thick. 
It 1s evident that it had had red paint, and it seems to me that all the obelisks were 
painted, although in some of them the influence of time has destroyed the color. 
‘To the east, and in front of figure No. 14 [Stela B], there is another standing stone, 
the back of which contains 20 squares arranged in groups of 4, as can be seen in 
No. 19 [Stela F]. The upper ones seem to be hanging, and the same is true of the 
two squares of No. 15, all of which lead us to believe that this nation used to write 
their letters on wooden tablets which they afterward hung in their homes with 
strings or mbbons. The front of the obelisk is occupied by a human figure in half 
relief, in front of which there is a large square table or altar, having a hole in the 
middle. The obelisk nearest the temple is located at a distance of about 200 yards 
to the northeast, being to the south of the last one described, separated by a dis- 
tance of 25 yards [Stela H]. The figure on its face is shown in drawing No. 12. The 
trousers he wears are curious; perhaps it was a woman’s dress. No. 13 represents 











1Galindo here refers to the roughly spherical inclusion composed of a harder, more indurated material found 
in the rock-mass of Stela D, for a description of which see Appendix I. 

*It is hardly necessary to point out that Galindo is in error here as to the real character of the Maya hiero- 
glyphic-writing. While it is indubitably true that phonetic elements occur here and there in the texts, the great 
majority of the signs are ideographic, that is, they stand for ideas rather than sounds. (See Morley, 1915, pp. 23-30.) 


DESCRIPTION OF COPAN BY GALINDO. 599 


the foot of the same figure drawn to the right. In front of the figure, at a distance 
of 3 yards, there is a table or altar with the corner toward the figure, the upper part 
being straight. The other 3 sides of the obelisk are curiously wrought. 

Near by there is a stone (figure No. 8), almost spherical in shape, surrounded 
by a belt, its horizontal diameter being 1 yard 28 inches, while its smallest or per- 
pendicular diameter is 1 yard 6 inches. In the upper part there is a small circular 
cavity crossed by a serpentine line. I wonder what whim of art this could be? 

There is also here, fallen and in ruins, the head of a gigantic alligator or lizard, 
between the jaws of which there is placed the half body of a monstrous figure, whose 
face is human, but with the claws or feet of an animal. 

On the other side of the Copan River, on a hill in front of the windows, and at 
a distance of half a league or more from the latter, there is a monumental stone, 
now fallen and broken into 2 parts, a small piece of its head being missing [Stela 
12 at Group 3]. Although it stands on a commanding site, at its back there is, at 
a certain distance, a still higher mountain. 

This obelisk, like all the others, is parallelepipedal in shape. It was standing 
with one of its wider sides overlooking the windows, that is to say, west 29° 15’ 
north, surrounded by a pavement a little higher than the ground, 8 yards long, 
extending from the northeast to the southwest, being from 4 to 5 yards wide. 

This obelisk, monumental stone, or column was not a perfect parallelepiped, 
as its width and thickness gradually diminish from top to bottom, and although 
its actual total length was 3 yards 28 inches, its greatest width at the top is 24 
inches, and at the bottom it is only 22 inches wide. In the upper part the greatest 
thickness of the obelisk is 19 inches, and at the bottom it is only 16 inches. The 
stone was buried to the depth of 24 inches, and the 12 inches from that point to the 
squares of its inscription are smooth. On the two widest faces of the column there 
are 48 squares in 4 perpendicular rows of 12 each. On the other 2 sides there are 
52 squares, also in 4 rows, 2 on each side. The 4 lower squares of the widest faces 
are 9 inches square, their width upward being the same, but their height gradually 
diminishes until the height of the 4 lower squares of the same faces is only 6.5 inches. 
The same is true of the 2 thick sides of the obelisk, where the 4 lower squares have 
a width of 8 inches and a height of 7 inches, the width continuing uniform upward, 
but the height diminishes gradually, inasmuch as the upper squares become equal 
to those of the other two faces at a height of 6.5 inches. The margin makes the 
difference in the size of the column. ‘The red paint which covers this stone and 
causes the common people to call it painted is so well mixed that even now it is 
noticeable throughout the entire surface, and seems to constitute an essential part 
of the obelisk. 

Upon a hill, at a point even more prominent than the one referred to, and about 
2 leagues distant west of the windows, there is another monumental stone [Stela 
10 at Group 12]. This obelisk is smaller than the one just described, and is com- 
pletely fallen. Its height from the bottom of the squares is 24 inches, its total length 
being 3 yards 20 inches. It is rectangular in all its parts and contains 72 squares, 
arranged in 8 perpendicular rows of g each. On the two widest sides of the obelisk, 
that is to say, those which are 24 inches wide, the squares and their characters 
are very distinct and marked. On the other 2 narrower faces, the 2 rows of squares 
can scarcely be distinguished, and the characters are confused for lack of space. 
These letters, signs, or characters, like most of the others which have been noticed, 
are painted red. 

Many piles of fallen edifices are found in all the neighboring country. Half 
a league to the north of the western boundary of the city there are immense quarries, 
forming great precipices and ravines, from which the ancient architects obtained 


600 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


material for their buildings, obelisks, ete. The stone, of course, 1s the same as that 
which is encountered in the ruins. These quarries are in the ocote-pine groves, in 
the direction of the hill of Cutilca. 

The Cave of Tibulca, of which Father Juarros speaks so fabulously, must be 
the Cutilca Cave, as there is none other in all that vicinity, and it should be added 
that this corruption of names has been common. On the side of the hill of Cutilea, 
some 800 yards above the Sesesmil Canyon, which divides said mountain from the 
“Cerron” or large mountain, called by this name because of its greater height, 
facing the west, is the mouth of the cave commonly called “Tigra”’ [Tigress], because 
some 20 years ago a ferocious animal of that species took refuge therein. As the 
hunters desired to starve this animal, they closed the entrance with a fence, but 
being tired, after 7 days waiting, they entered the cave and killed the wild animal 
with their lances. The entrance to the cave is 5 yards high and 2 wide, and the 
fence, which completely closed the same, still exists. 

This cave is quite inferior in extent, beauty, and interest to the Jobitsina 
Cave near the Lake of Peten, the latter cave being one of the most beautiful works 
of nature, but the nearness of the Cutilca Cave to the great city of Copan must 
have made it famous. According to figure No. 25, the gallery at the entrance is 
level until it turns to the north, then rapidly falls to another level which, on account 
of its greater width, forms a hall. From this hall ascent is made to another space 
a little higher up. There are 80 paces from the farthest extremity of the cave to 
its mouth. Only a few bats dwell there. It does not have many nor beautiful 
stalactites, and these are not very hard, and can be loosened almost by the force of 
the fingers. Since the death of the tigress no one has dared enter the cave. 

The hill of Cutilca is, furthermore, very remarkable because of its picturesque 
slope. Near the top and looking toward the south there is an immense precipice 
of red rock. The common people speak of a cave supposed to exist at the foot of 
this ravine. After many difficulties on account of the steepness of the mountain, 
I went up to this place, which has no cave other than some small open cavities. 
From the foot of this natural wall a large extent of the States of Guatemala, Salva- 
dor, and Honduras, the Gilotepeque volcano, etc., is seen. Ata distance of 3 leagues 
from Copan, across the little hills of ocote-pine forests called Llano Primero, half 
a league to the west of the rancho of Llano Grande, through which passes the main 
highway from Chiquimula to the plains of Santa Rosa, are found quantities of 
trunks of petrified ocote-pine, particularly three kinds, namely, one of great specific 
gravity or weight, another of flint stone, and another much used for sharpening 
iron instruments. Great trunks of petrified pine are seen almost buried, and those 
which are on the surface are of different sizes, but are generally split horizontally 
by the force of the sun, in widths of from 4 to 5 fingers. Ina neighboring oak grove 
are found pieces of petrified oak, equally good for whet and spark-stones. Petrified 
wood is found in great masses wedged in the fallen trunks, and large pieces of the 
same are half buried. Crossing a creek through the oak forest, which stream dries 
up in the summer, it is found that all of the said ocote-pine and oak groves are in a 
dry place, which causes us to wonder as to the cause of the petrification. This is 
one of the curiosities which makes Central America the country where nature has 
been most lavish in exhibiting its wonders. 

Pines and oaks grow in the midst of petrified timber. Only in the place indi- 
cated is this petrification found, since there is nothing like it in the neighboring 
country, not even in the swamps. This petrification process has doubtless sug- 
gested to the present inhabitants of these regions the foolish idea which they enter- 
tain, concerning the human figures which are found in the ruins of Copan, that 


a 


DESCRIPTION OF COPAN BY GALINDO. 601 


formerly they were living beings who, because of their heathenism and sins, became 
stones by divine wrath. 

The Copan River rises in the mountain to the east, runs through La Brea and 
beneath the windows. Farther on the Sesesmil Canyon joins the river on the north, 
this canyon rising also in the said mountain, passes near the famous Cave of Cutilca. 
It used to divide the western suburbs of Copan from the rest of the city, and flows 
into the river within the limits of the city, as may be seen on map No. t. 

The Copan River runs to the west, receives the Jupilingo River, runs through 
the village of Xupa and the villages of Camotan and Jocotan; and 7 leagues below 
the Chiquimula River empties into it. It passes between Sacapa and Estansuela, 
and empties into the Motagua, its course extending 20 leagues, counting from this 
place [Copan] to its mouth. Thence to the sea, through the Motagua River, is a 
distance of 65 leagues, following the course of the river. The Copan River con- 
tains a great quantity of fish and in no place is navigable, although in the winter 
season logs are floated down it. 

Comparing these ruins with those of Palenque, it can be seen immediately 
that their similarity suggests a common origin, in spite of the fact that they differ 
in essential points. 

Palenque was ruined and forgotten before the conquest, while the Spaniards 
found Copan in all its splendor, and yet the buildings and other works in Palenque 
are in a better condition than in Copan, owing to their superior architecture. Here 
in Copan there are no houses standing, as there are many in Palenque. Its build- 
ing-stones are of diverse character, while those of Palenque are not more than 2 
inches thick. The roofs in Copan were made of inclined stones, while those of 
Palenque are always horizontally placed. In Palenque they are cemented with 
mortar, while in Copan they are not. 

In ancient times, with the exception of Palenque, Copan was undoubtedly the 
most remarkable city of Central America, since, if the capitals of the Quichés and 
Cachiqueles equaled it, there would have been left some signs of their superiority. 

There is more fineness and perfection in the human figures there [Palenque], 
and they are nearly always placed in profile, while these on the contrary are most 
commonly found with front views. I did not see obelisks nor carved tables at 
Palenque. 

The circular stones of both places are very similar, and also I find their writings 
always placed in almost square blocks containing faces and hands and other identi- 
cal characters. This similarity may come from the similarity of the Maya and 
Chorti languages, or perhaps because the inscriptions are in a dead language, the 
common mother of the two languages mentioned. In the same manner modern 
nations frequently use Latin under the same circumstances. ‘The following is a 
short vocabulary of the Chorti language: 


Quin Sun. Unen Son, Daughter. 
Uj Moon (a month). Sacun Elder brother. 
Ek Star. Uitsin Younger brother. 
Kak Fire. Jor Head. 

Ja Water. Sutsernijor Hair, 

Tokar Cloud. Unacaut Eye. 

Uinik Man. Chiquin Ears. 

Ixik Woman. Ti Mouth. 
Tegerom Boy. Caab Hand. 

Ikchok Gurl. Tigere Tapir. 

Tata Father. Masa Deer. 

Tu Mother. Mut Bird. 





1This is the Spanish 7, and equals the English h; x equals English sh. 


602 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 
Chai Fish. Otot House. 
Guina Hunger. Uitsir Hill. 
Jacatiniti Thirst. Noja River. 
Aingtie To eat. Inté ie 
Unchi To drink. Chaté 2: 
Inguaian To sleep. Uxteé ai 
Inchamai To die. Chanté 4. 
Te res Joté i 
Ucabte Branch of a tree. Uakté 6. 
Tajte Ocote-pine. Uaxikté! Fh 
Txim Maize. Ukté 8. 
Ajan Ear of green corn. Boronté 9. 
Uchigtun-cha Grindstone. Launté IO. 
Tun Stone. 


-In the orthography of the indigenous languages of Central America, x has the 
same value as the French ch. 

The climate of Copan is excellent, and the site of the city has all the advan- 
tages which the ancient Americans generally chose for their principal towns. Copan 
is located 770 yards above the level of the sea, and consequently has a temperature 
similar to that of Amatitlan. 

Now that the governing class of this hemisphere has a direct interest in its 
fame and a filial love for its history, the ancient history of America will begin to be 
properly considered and written. The study of the history of their own country 
will give to the people of Central America a more refined patriotism and a character 
peculiarly its own. 

Probably the founding of.the Empire of Copan was contemporaneous with 
that of Peru, that is to say, about the eleventh century of the Christian era. 

The Spanish conquerors invariably assert with pride that the indigenous 
nations of the continent spontaneously offered themselves as vassals of their king 
on the first intimation or hint given them. This is undoubtedly afirmed, to justify 
their invasions, but that such an assertion is false is inferred from the long wars 
that they always waged with the natives. 

The well-known expedition which marched against Copan was under the com- 
mand of Fernando Chaves, who came from Guatemala some time in April 1530, 
with an army of Europeans and native allies. He advanced not without opposition, 
through Jalpatagua, Mita, and Esquipulas, and then laid siege to this city. No 
person could point out the place of the victory of Fernando Chaves over the King 
of Copan. These inhabitants do not know that such a battle took place. The 
ignorance and apathy concerning the origin and history of the ancient monuments 
are really surprising. The owner of the adjoining ranch, Ornillos, who, being a 
prominent and wealthy gentleman in this part of the country, was supposed to be 
somewhat intelligent, does not seem to know anything at all. The Spaniards 
taught all of them to look with hatred and contempt on the works of the natives, 
because the latter were not instructed in the mysteries of our holy religion, and it is 
still difficult to eradicate and destroy this feeling. 

Four or five leagues from Esquipulas 1s the place popularly called ““Conquest”’ 
(see figure No. 26). It is a peninsula formed by the Lempa River, and in part by a 
brook which unites with that river to the south, the waters running through a very 





1Galindo has evidently interchanged the words for 7 and 8 here. The Maya word for 7 in the Books of Chilan 
Balam (northern Yucatan) is uuc, and for 8, waxac, which are very similar to the Chorti words Galindo gives for 
these two numbers, waxikté and ukté respectively, only reversed. The t#é is an unessential difference, being only a 
particle used in counting, as pel and even ¢é itself in northern Yucatan, for example, hunp’el haab, 1 year; oxp’el 
haab, 3 years, and te hunté Pop, the first of Pop. 

The corresponding forms in the Books of Chilan Balam are: 1, hunp’el; 2, cap’ el; 3, oxp’el; 4, canp’el; 5, hop’el; 
6, uacp’el; 7, uucp'el; 8, uaxacp’el; 9, bolonp’el; and 10, lahunp’el. 





DESCRIPTION OF COPAN BY GALINDO. 603 


deep canyon in the vicinity, leaving to the south a single narrow entrance. After 
traveling some distance through it, a stone trench is encountered, with many 
quarried stones, which crosses the isthmus where it is not wider than 20 yards. 
After passing the trench, a plain of about 200 yards in diameter is found, surrounded 
by the river and elevated above it by perpendicular precipices more than 100 yards. 
The side opposite the peninsula is level with it, but at a distance of a rifle shot. 
As a point of defense it was excellent, the besieged having supplies of provisions 
and the means of drawing up water from the surrounding abyss. 

Bearing in mind the advancement the aborigines of Copan had made in art, 
science, and civilization, the coldest and most indifferent soul revolts against the 
barbarous conquerors who allowed even the memory of such an interesting nation 
to perish. 

It is due to the memory of the priests, who were themselves the victims of the 
Spanish rule, that, during the first years of the conquest, they were the strongest, 
or, it may well be said, the only defenders of the unhappy Indians, and they brought 
upon themselves, therefore, the universal hatred of the conquerors. Guatemala 
will always be proud of having had as one of its citizens that noble and untiring 
defender of the Indians, Bartolomé de las Casas. 

A number of Indians driven from Copan after the conquest, founded, it is 
believed, the neighboring towns of Jocotan and San Juan Ermita. Camotan, a 
village nearer to Copan, was founded many years afterwards by natives of the 
Chorti nation, who emigrated from Tachaluya, in the State of Salvador. 

Copan continued to be inhabited, even after the conquest, but in a state of 
perpetual decadence. Some 75 years ago the cultivation of tobacco was brought 
from there to the plains of Santa Rosa, and the population gradually decreased to a 
village of three houses situated to the west of the Sesesmil Canyon, which formerly 
comprised the western suburb of the city. ‘The site of the ancient capital is now 
entirely included in the lands of a chaplaincy founded by the curacy of Guatemala. 

I have the honor to express to you, citizen minister general, the assurance of 
my most humble respect and devotion. 

God, Union, Liberty. Juan GaLInpo. 


NOTE. 


Through a fortunate accident, when this volume was already on the press, 
the writer learned that Colonel Juan Galindo was born in Ireland, and was a Central 
American by adoption only. Thanks are due for this timely information to Dr. 
Don Policarpo Bonilla, former President of Honduras, and now Envoy Extraordi- 
nary and Minister Plenipotentiary on Special Mission from that republic to the 
government of the United States. 

Galindo, it seems, after his return from Copan in 1834, was sent by the govern- 
ment of Central America to Great Britain to effect a settlement of the boundary 
dispute then pending between the two countries, but when he arrived in London the 
British government refused to receive him as a diplomatic agent in the negotiations 
on the ground that he was a British subject, having been born in Ireland, and was 
thus disqualified from representing the government of Central America. 

The whole correspondence, so far as it affected the United States government, 
to which Galindo first appealed before going to England, was published in United 
States Senate Documents, second session, Thirty-second Congress, 1852-1853, Senate 
Document No. 27, pp. 1-13. Miss M. W. Williams, in her Anglo-American Isthmian 
Diplomacy, 1815-1915, also gives a brief summary of the affair. See Williams, 1916, 


PP- 33, 34- 


604 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Squier describes Colonel Galindo as an intelligent Inshman (1855, p. 52), 
and gives the following biographical sketch and a bibliography of five titles (ibid., 
p. 390). Unfortunately it has been impossible to ascertain his real name from any of 
the several sources mentioned. 


“Galindo, John, an Irishman, who entered the service of the old Republic of Central 
America about the year 1827, received the rank of colonel in the army, was governor of the 
Department of Peten in Guatemala, subsequently named representative of the republic 
to the court of St. James, but was refused recognition on the ground of being a British sub- 
ject, and was finally killed in an Indian town in Honduras. He was far from being a close 
observer, nor was he a man of large information. He nevertheless was industrious, and 
gave the world many interesting facts, coupled with crude speculations, on the states of 
Central America and the country in general. After Juarros, he was, I believe, the first to 
direct public attention to the ruins of Copan.” 


APPENDIX XII. 


THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE MAYANCE! 
LINGUISTIC STOCK. 


WILLriaM GaTESs. 





In the following pages I have endeavored to set forth three points, as follows: 

(1) To indicate the probable nature of the tongue spoken at Copan during tke 
Old Empire, based upon all the evidence now available, including much new unpub- 
lished material in my own collection of Mayance manuscripts and rare, if not 
unique, copies of early published grammars, texts, doctrinas, reports, and the like. 

(2) To establish by means of geographical, phonological, grammatical and 
vocabulary comparisons, the proper relation of that language to the other members 
of the Mayance linguistic stock. 

(3) To collate briefly this evidence with the historical and chronological data 
worked out by Morley, the stylistic data accumulated by Spinden, and certain 
native traditional and historical data as yet only partly published. 

In figure g1 the distribution of the several Mayance linguistic branches is 
shown. This map is based upon Stoll’s ethnographic map of Guatemala? and 
Thomas’s linguistic map of Mexico and Central America,’ together with certain 
emendations of my own, indicated by unpublished material in my collection. 

The most important new contribution to the subject brought out by this 
study is the proof of the essential unity of the Cholti and the Chorti dialects as 
members of the same linguistic branch, a condition absolutely demanded by the 
archeological evidence, but one which heretofore it has been impossible to admit 
on the linguistic side, because of the incorrect filiation of the Chorti with the Pokom 
group through Stephens’s curious error in 1839, when he collected 21 Pokoman 
words from a Pokoman Indian in Chorti territory, 1. e., at Zacapa. 

On the basis of this word-list, Stoll later filated Chorti with the Pokom 
branch, thereby creating a gap between the archzologic and linguistic evidence 
which it has been impossible to account for. The true position of the Chorti, 7. ¢., 
filiated with the Cholti, however, clears up this discrepancy and for the first time 
brings these two lines of evidence into agreement with each other. 

Our earliest information as to the language spoken in the vicinity of Copan 
comes from Palacio (1576), who after recounting the tradition that people from 
Yucatan had anciently conquered the provinces of Ayajal (probably Tayasal), 
Lacandon, Verapaz, Chiquimula, and Copan, adds that “‘it is certain that the Apay 
language, which is spoken here, is current and understood in Yucatan and the 
aforesaid provinces.” 

In the name Apay we probably have the same as in Payaquf, given in Jsagoge* 
as applying to the Corregimiento of Chiquimula, “in which are the edifices of 
Copan.” The authority here is a manuscript probably quoted in the unpublished 
part of Fuentes, but which I have not by me while writing, to verify. The great 
Balam Quiché, ninth king of Utatlan, is there given as the first king of those of 








1Gates uses the term “ Mayance” to designate the entire family of Maya dialects, drawing his analogy from 
the use of the word Romance in European linguistics to indicate the modern representatives of the old Roman 
or Latin linguistic stock. However, he still follows the general usage in speaking of “the Maya civilization, Maya 


art,” etc. 
2See Stoll, 1884, map. 3See Thomas, 1911, map. 4See Isagoge historico, 1892, p. 348. 


605 


606 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Payaqui, having united the two kingdoms, eleven reigns before the coming of the 
Spaniards. Upon the name Apay I find no further light, the vocabulary of the 
Paya, in northeastern Honduras, being so completely different as to be out of con- 
sideration. 

The next reference, and the first Chorti vocabulary yet found, is in the Galindo 
report of 1834, the chance discovery of the original manuscript of which in my col- 
lection last summer (1919) led to the writing of this Appendix. This list contains 
51 words, including the first ten numbers, and is definitely good Chorti, having 
come from Copan itself. 





94° 92° 90° 88 











50 ie) 50 100 iso 200-250 
= ae = 























BAY OF CAMPECHE 




























LEGEND ye 

cemma BRANCH BOUNDARIES Y 

eo DIALECT BOUNDARIES 4 
UI, ~-~ NATIONAL BOUNDARIES Ly 
GFW Yio, NON-MAYA LINGUISTIC STOCKS Z 
XL, |lll|illl| HABITAT OF THE TOTONACA Lx 
Sp opes pel gg 

eg 


| 









































od 
Sc 





Fic. 91.— Map showing distribution of the several branches of the Mayance linguistic stock. 


= 


I. Maya. III. Cholti. V. Quiché. 
1a, Maya 3a, Cholti 5a, Quiché 
1b, Itza (Icaiche, Santa 3b, Chorti 56, Cakchiquel 
Cruz) se, Tzutuhil 
1c, Lacandén IV. Mame. 5d, Uspanteca 
4a, Mame 
II. Tzental 4b, Ixil VI. Pokom. 
2a, Tzental 4c, Aguacateca 6a, Pokoman 
2b, Tzotzil 4d, Solomeca 6b, Pokonchi 
2c, Chontal 4e, Jacalteca 6c, Kekchi 
2d, Chanabal 4f, Chuje 


VII. Huasteca. 


4g, Chicomucelteca 
4h, Motozintleca 





DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAYANCE LINGUISTIC STOCK. 607 


Juarros, writing in 1795, gives Chorti as the language of Chiquimula, Zacapa, 
Esquipulas, Jocotan, Tejutla, and Los Esclavos (stating in addition that Pokoman 
is spoken in Chalchuapa, Mita, and Jilotepeque). 

With the vocabulary of 21 words gathered by Stephens in Zacapa in 1839 and 
incorrectly identified by him as Chorti, a language which he correctly claims was 
spoken in Jocotan, Camotan, and the valley of Sensenti in Honduras, our trou- 
bles begin. This word-list was given by Stephens to Gallatin, who published it! 
and it was later incorporated by Berendt in a comparative word-list of about 600 
words, the manuscript of which, after passing into Rockstroh’s possession, was 
finally published in extenso by Stoll,? except for the omission of 4 out of Stephens’s 
original 21 words. Stoll compares these 17 words with the corresponding words 
of Pokoman and Chol, and the unmistakable likeness of the Pokoman and spurious 
Chorti in this list, and their common dissimilarity from the Chol (5 of the 17 are 
common to all three, and the other 12 are Pokom4n, and not Chol), caused him to 
filiate Chorti as a subdialect of the Pokom group, while Chol was properly branched 
with Tzental, Tzotzil, Chafabal, and the (Mayance) Chontal of Tabasco. Stoll 
was at Zacapa for a few days, but found no one still speaking the language; but he 
quotes a letter from Dr. Eisen, however, who had visited Copan in 1882, in which 
the latter speaks of Chorti “as of the greatest importance for the deciphering of the 
glyphs, as it must be the original language of Copan,” and comments on the 
great difference of the Jocotan mountaineers from the other Indians. Squier® also 
says the Chorti extended over into the Sensenti Valley in Honduras. 

Brasseur de Bourbourg in a note in the Popol Vuh,* says that the kingdom of 
Chiquimula was called Payaqui among the Toltecs or Nahuas, ‘“‘according to the 
Isagoge manuscript, cited by Garcia Pelaez’’; also that Chiquimula was the “native 
name of Copan,” a Nahuatl word, also written Copantli, and at which was spoken 
Chorti, “‘a dialect of Pokomam.” I can find no foundation, however, for any of these 
Nahuatl connections, nor am I able to verify the Pokoman relation in any way. 
Brasseur de Bourbourg himself knew no Chol, and probably relied upon the 
Stephens-Gallatin tradition, copies of both of whose works were in the Pinart sale, 
which included the greater part of Brasseur de Bourbourg’s own library. 

Our next material we owe to Ruano Suarez, who in 1892 presented to the 
Central American Exposition a study of Guatemalan dialects which contains a 
Pokoman vocabulary of some 800 words gathered in Jilotepeque, and a Chorti 
vocabulary of some 1,500 gathered in Chiquimula. He tells us that Chorti is also 
spoken in Jocotan, Camotan, Olopa, Esquipulas, and Quetzaltepeque, but that in 
1892 it was no longer used in Chiquimula by any of the Indians then living under 
50 years of age, being preserved only by a few surviving ancianos. Vor this reason, 
and also because of the adjoined Pokoman vocabulary, gathered by the same 
student at the same date, the Ruano Suarez manuscript must be counted as of 
great value; it is also in my possession. 

Senor Alberto Membreno, long Minister from Honduras to this country, who 
has for many years added scholarship and literary research to his diplomatic quali- 
fications, has next given us a 400-word Chorti vocabulary, in his Hondurenismos, 
first published in 1895.° This list, however, he tells us is only an extract from the 
Ruano Suarez manuscript just described. 

Finally, we owe to the Licenciado Atilio Peccorini, of San Salvador, a list of 150 
words, with a page of phrases, taken down by him from a native named Nazario 
Agustin at Camotan, in 1909, on the occasion of a visit to Copan.° 








1Gallatin, 1845, p. 9. Stoll, 1884, p. 108. ‘Squier, 1855, p. 385. 
4Popol Vuh, 1861, p. Ixxxv. 5Membreno, 1897, p. 261. SPeccorini, 1909, pp. 79-83. 


608 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Gathering the foregoing material together and eliminating the spurious 
Stephens list, which we have seen is Pokoman and not Chorti at all, we have the 
following Chorti vocabularies: (1) Galindo (1834), 51 words; (2) Ruano Suarez 
(1892), 1,500 words; (3) Peccorini (1909), 150 words. 

The foregoing data delimit the Chorti region very satisfactorily, except that 
they leave us entirely without definite information as to whether it extended over 
to the Motagua River and the coast, 1. ¢., including Quirigua; this northern limit 
is of some importance, because it is the boundary between the Chorti and the Chol, 
or Cholti, which we have to examine next. 

The Chol region has been the subject of much discussion and uncertainty, but 
I am sure the delimitation in the linguistic map in Stoll’s Ethnographie is closely 
accurate; its boundaries, however, also go over into Chiapas, which Stoll’s map does 
not include. The restriction of Chol to a small district around Golfo Dulce, as 
mapped in Thomas and Swanton, is unquestionably wrong. (See Thomas, IgI1, 
map.) 

Passing over the various abortive efforts at entry and pacification of this great 
region, stretching from Golfo Dulce to Laguna de ‘Términos and west of the Usu- 
macinta River, during the first century after the Spanish Conquest, we come with 
the year 1625 to an effort which, though equally fruitless in its direct objects, yet 
resulted in the first and only real foundation for our present study. In that year 
40 soldiers were sent under the alcalde of Verapaz to open a road to Laguna de 
Términos, with them going the Dominican, Francisco Moran; and in the same year 
possession in the King’s name was taken of 18 towns in the “ province of Manché,” 
or the eastern part of the above region. San Miguel is given as capital of chi 
province, and another of these 18 towns was San Lucas de Zalac de el Chol; 7 other 
towns are mentioned as added to these, not counting 19 other unreduced towns of 
the ‘“‘barbaros,”’ all of which are named, and one of which called Axiza was said 
to have 10,000 souls.!. By 1639, however, little of the reduction remained, and a 
number of new petitions were presented, including one by Padre Moran himself, 
and another, inspired by his representations, by Diego de Vera Ordonez de Villa- 
quiran, to whom was then conceded the task, with title of governor and captain- 
general of the new province, which was to be called “ Prospero (alias el Lacandon).” 
A long detailed relation of events up to this time was made in a printed report to 
the Council of the Indies by the Relator Leon Pinelo, only one copy of which, with 
the accompanying printed title issued to de Vera, is known to have survived. 
Among other things it mentions one printed and also one manuscript memorial 
on the subject, presented by Padre Moran to His Majesty in 1637; and also that 
Moran stated there were 100,000 souls, apparently referring, says Leon Pinelo, to 
Manché and Lacandon alone, while Diego de Cardenas gives the number as 500,000, 
referring probably to the entire unsubdued district. What seems beyond doubt, 
from the very scanty descriptions given of places like Puchutla, for example, is 
that the whole region must have been not only populous, but with a very consider- 
able status of culture. 

Padre Moran left compiled a libro de quartilla grande alto, which he col- 
lected from “many of the friars.” This contained a most excellent grammar, a 
Doctrina, and a fine vocabulary of some 5,000 words, and it was unquestionably 
extensively used by his successors, though the original has disappeared. 

By 1675 practically nothing of the work of pacification of the region seems to 
have survived. In that year the Dominican Provincial Gallegos set out with Padre 








1This is doubtless one of the many variants for Itza or Ahitza, the capital of the Itza nation from 1450 circa 
to 1697. (See Means, 1917, Appendix 1.) This settlement was located on an island in the Lake of Peten Itza and 
was conquered by Martin de Urstia in 1697. (See op. cit., pp. 179-185.) The Isagoge historico (p. 371) speaks of 
Cortés’s passage “por las montaitas del Ahiza.” 


DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAYANCE LINGUISTIC STOCK. 609 


Joseph Delgado, who had just returned from travels the year before among the 
Choles. Setting out from Cahabén, at 23 leagues 1 in the forest they formed a small 
settlement, according to Villagutierre, calling it San Lucas Tzalac; 4 of the 11 towns 
said to have been formed in the next two years bear the names of towns included in 
the Leon Pinelo 19; some 30 other places are named, to most of which they could 
not go, but some of these are also the same as those named in 1639. The popula- 
tion of the whole district is here given as 30,000. Villagutierre also mentions 
Ordonez de Villaquiran as still Alealde Mayor of Chiapa aid Adelantado of Prés- 
pero about 1680, and as starting to put down a Queache uprising beyond Tenosique. 
In the beginning of 1685 we are told that San Lucas Tzalac was established a third 
time. The maintenance of this settlement was the only thing attempted in the 
succeeding years, and in 1688 the Indians burned the church and houses; but 
happily a small manuscript volume escaped, as we shall presently see. This manu- 
script was presented by President Mariano Galvez in 1836 to the American Philoso- 
phical Society, since which time it appears to have lain wholly unused, save only 
for a scanty and very inadequately copied extract by Berendt. It begins with 
some notes about the road to the region of the Choles and the settlement thereof 
in 1689 to 1692; then follow two transcripts, by different hands, and with minor 
variances of the Moran grammar; then Moran’s Doctrina, with considerable addi- 
tions; next at page 75, a Confessionario, written “at San Lucas de Salac de el Chol, 
in 1685”; and finally the Vocabulario Grande of Moran, with some additional 
words and a colophon dating this as having been written “‘In this town of the 
Lacandones called La Senora de los Dolores, June 24, 1695.” 

This manuscript is doubly important. It contains not only the earliest Cholti 
vocabulary known, but also the most extensive one, and in a larger sense has been 
more useful than any other source in filiating the Chorti with the Cholti as parts 
of the same branch. 

The territory we are discussing is given by Leon Pinelo roughly as stretching 
from 15° to 16° 30’ north latitude, and some 4 degrees east to west, or about “‘40 by 
70 leagues.” In this region we have two “‘provinces,’’ Manché in the east and 
Lacandon, or Prospero, in the west. Going north from Cahabén one entered 
“Chol” territory almost at once, which then continued, according to Padre Cano, 
for some 45 or 50 leagues to that of the Mopanes, for whom the Cholti needed an 
interpreter, and whom he classes as belonging to the great Itza nation, which he 
divides into the Mopan-Itzas and the Petén-Itzas. There is no reason to doubt 
the accuracy of Padre Cano’s statement, and it definitely places the Mopanes as 
speaking what we now call Yucatecan Maya, though with dialectic differences; 
and it confirms the distinction of the Cholti. 

When Padre Moran first set out in 1625 for Laguna de Términos, he reached a 
river, rapid and unnavigable, at 12 leagues of travel; in 6 days’ journey more he 
reached the Salinas of Bolontevitz, or Nueve Cerros ‘“‘among the Lacandones,”’ 
and then 1 league farther the navigable river “which he was seeking,” namely, 
the Chixoy. When the 1695 expedition set out, in three divisions, one from Caha- 
bon, one from Huehuetenango, and one from Ocosingo, the first, and that which 
Padre Cano accompanied, returned after penetrating close to Petén; while the 
other two met, after some 6 weeks of travel by easy stages, at Dolores. This latter 
place is described as being located a short league beyond a great river with green 
waters, which the company from Huehuetenango took for the Ocosingo River, 
and again as about 12 leagues beyond a large lake encountered by the company 
from Ocosingo, under President Barrios himself. 

We thus have in this little Cholti volume, now in the library of the American 
Philosophical Society, memoranda written at Belén, apparently at the distance of 
a considerable journey from Rabinal, in 1690 to 1692; then next the grammar; 


610 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


then the Confessionario at Tzalac in the east, in 1685; and finally the Vocabulario, 
dated at Dolores in the west, in 1695; and yet nearly the whole volume being derived 
from the libro grande of Padre Moran, doubtless written some 60 years before. 

For further Cholti linguistic material we have a Chol vocabulary of some 450 
words, by Juan Jossef de la Fuente Albores, dated “Casa y Curato de VS, Tila y 
Enero 26, 1789.” Tila appears to be the name of the place; this is printed by Ferraz, 
in Lenguas Indigenas de Centro América, 1892.’ 

Next we have the Berendt-Rockstroh comparative word-list of some 600 
words, printed by Stoll,? which is apparently from the western or Usumacinta 
district. In this connection Stoll says the Choles are now left only in five villages 
in the Department of Palenque—Palenque, Sabana, Salto de Agua, Tumbala, and 
Tila. Berendt speaks of the Usumacinta Lacandéns as reduced to a remnant near 
the Rio de la Pasion, and in a passage of doubtful significance seems to distinguish 
an eastern from a western branch, speaking different languages, one being Putum 
or Chol; he also speaks of the peaceful character of the eastern branch and the war- 
like character of the western branch. Finally we have a list of 100 words taken 
down for me in 1915, at Salto de Agua, near Ocosingo. 

The foregoing Cholti sources may be summarized as follows: (1) Padre 
Moran (1625-1695), 5,000 words; (2) Jossef de la Fuente Albores (1789), 450 
words; (3) the Berendt-Rockstroh List, 600 words; (4) the Gates List (1915), 
100 words. 

The foregoing is our material for the study of Cholti-Chorti, so far as known 
to me; and from its study we reach the following conclusions: 

First, and most important, Cholti and Chorti constitute but one language, 
with but a single distinction, to be discussed below; and the two combined almost 
constitute a branch to itself among the Mayance tongues, stretching from the 
Sensenti Valley in Honduras, including Copan and Quirigua, through the tierra 
caliente north of the Guatemalan highlands, a stretch of country some 40 leagues 
broad, quite to Ocosingo and Palenque, the Tulha and Nachan respectively of 
Ordonez. It is bounded on the south by the three southern Mayance branches, the 
Pokom, the Quiché, and the Mame, on the north by the Yucatecan Maya, and on 
the west by the Tzental district. Its closest affiliation is with the last; and it must 
either be treated as a separate branch altogether or as part of the Tzental or 
Chiapan branch. 

The ending tz in Cholti means mouth, speech, and reappears as chi, with this 
same value in Kekchi, Pokonchi, and Cakchiquelchi; the word appears as chi in 
Maya and in the Pokom and Quiché branches, and as ?z in all the dialects of the 
Tzental group, and.as ¢zi in the Mame-Ixil, except that in the Jacalteca and Chuje, 
on the northern Mame border, 7. ¢., nearest the Cholti (see fig. 91, 4e and 4f), it is 
again ¢1. The authority for the latter is Stoll in his treatise on the Ixil, but it is 
also confirmed by word-lists for Chuje and Tohoabal or Chanabal, in my own 
possession. (A Cholti & frequently becomes a Maya t; t, ch; ch, c; and c, k’.) 
Chol means farm or milpa, and is the same as Maya col; thus the word is given in 
the Moran manuscript, which begins, Arte de lengua Eholti, 6 lengua de Milperos. 
And the Moran vocabulary also defines two other words, which clear away two 
other long-standing linguistic confusions. Putun is given as manso, peaceable, and 
so exactly applies to the peaceful eastern Choles on their milpas, whence the term 
Putum, which in time was corrupted by copyists to Puctune and Punctunc, and 
possibly survives to- day 1 in the modern Poctun, a village of eastern Petén. And 
quelen 1 is defined as meaning hombre fuerte, strong man (vir, varén), whence its appli- 
cation to the warlike western people, in exactly the same way as we find the corre- 





1See Fernandez, 1892, pp. 43-48. *Stoll, 1884, pp. 45-70. 


DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAYANCE LINGUISTIC STOCK. 611 


sponding Quiché term dchi given as a variant for the Tzutuhil; this specifically 
answers the query under Tzotzil in Thomas, rgrt, and is confirmed by the Tzotzil 
quelem for mancebo, youth, and the Tzental quelenmut, gallo or cock, where quelen 
equals male, or macho. 

Second, while the unity of the Chol and Lacand6n of the seventeenth century 
is shown by the history of the Moran manuscript, there are to be expected minor 
dialectic differences; and one of these appears as a marginal note by a different hand, 
on page 43 of the manuscript, where we are told that the sentence, ‘‘Is there corn? 
There is,” which is given in the text as being Ayan ta ixim? Ayan, in Cholti, is 4n 
ixim? Anach,in Lacandon. A thorough study of possible east and west differences 
I have not yet made, however. 

Finally, while I would not want to rest many deductions on the Berendt- 
Rockstroh list, standing alone, nevertheless this list does show a very marked group- 
ing, as follows: First, it is clear that Chol or Cholti is more closely related to the 
entire [zental branch than it is to any of the others, as pointed out by Stoll; next, 
and what we would not have expected for geographical reasons, the northern or 
Yucatan Maya, while frequently distinct from all the dialects to the south of it, 
is nevertheless quite frequently in accord with the mountainous Guatemalan 
dialects, those of the Pokom and Quiché branches, and rarely with the intervening 
Tzental-Chol, which in the majority of cases differs from both the other main 
territorial regions, the south and the north. Further, while in a certain number of 
cases the Chol-Tzental agrees either with the Maya on its north or the Pokom- 
Quiché branches on its south, to the exclusion of the other, these agreements occur 
much more markedly with the north than with the south. Sothat we seem to have 
first, as a time phenomenon, a main division between an archaic or early language 
(directly back of Tzental-Cholt’?) and a modern one (Maya and Quiché-Pokom); 
and second, as a geographical phenomenon, the northern or Maya branch, culturally 
and structurally closer to the Old Empire period than are the southern highland 
branches, the Quiché-Pokom. And this linguistic condition is exactly what the 
archzological evidence would lead us to expect, while the contrary would have 
led to hopeless difficulties in its resulting problems. 

Let us then compare this central group of branches, that 1s, the Chol-Tzental, 
with the Maya on the north and with the highland peoples, the Mame, Quiché, 
and Pokom branches on the south. 

First, in the vocabularies. It is at least worthy of note that in the case of 
what we might call the terminology of the supermundane, or words particular to 
Mayan science, the Chol-Tzental agrees with the Maya rather than with the 
Quiché; such as, for example, the roots of the words for sky, earth, wind, sun, moon, 
star, night, month, year, mountain, metal, stone; and in form, the words for the 
colors and numbers. 

Before taking up the phonological comparisons I must add a brief description 
of the Mayance general alphabet, covering all the branches, which is as natural 
and as essential to their understanding as is the standard Sanskrit for the like 
purpose. We must first note that all stop consonants may be of four orders: surd, 
sonant, aspirated, or ‘“‘cut,”’ the last called herida in the early Artes or grammars. 
In English we have the surds 9, ¢, tz, ch, and c (c palatal, from which 1s also to be 
distinguished a non-English guttural k—Tozzer’s velar k), with their corresponding 
sonants b, d, dz, 7, and g; to these is added in Sanskrit the aspirated series ph, bh, 
etc. In Mayance all sonants except } are wholly wanting, and in their place and 
that of the aspirated series we have a marked peculiarity in the cut or halted series, 
the letters of which sound as if each were successively choked back into the mouth 
and then released again from a dead stop; the expulsion of the breath seems to 
cease completely, and almost to come to an indrawing, before the stop sound is 


612 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


sent out. In no better way can the various efforts of the early writers, nor the 
unity of the whole phenomenon, be correctly understood, than by placing these 
two series, the surd and the cut, together in pairs. We thus get the following 
Mayance general alphabet of vowels, semi-vowels, breathings, liquids, nasals, 
sibilants, and stops: a, ¢, 1, 0, u, y, @, Db, h, 7, ly 1; m, nN, Sy x3 Dy DP, ts, 25 BiG ee 
ch’, c, c’, k, k’. The bis placed as it 1s, because just as 71 passes insensibly from 
vowel through glide to consonant y, so does u pass through a glide and bilabial w 
to a closed D; all this is constantly apparent in the manuscripts in the use of 7 and 
y and of u, v, and b. Thej has the Spanish value or strong A value. This h appears 
barred, h, in the San Buenaventura Maya grammar, and as a tailed h in Quiché, 
being denoted by special type in each case. The x is of course our sh. As to the 
stop consonants we have: 

In Maya, p, pp (or a barred p), ¢, th, tz, 9 (turned c), ch, ch (barred), c, -,—-, k’; 
that is, the whole series except the next to last two, cut c’ and uncut k. 

In Quiché-Cakchiquel, by use of the Parra characters adapted from the manu- 
script forms for c and g, p, pp, t, tt, 8, g, (this is the cwatrillo with comma, for 
t), ch, gh (this 1s the cwatrillo with tailed h, for ch’), c, g, k, and €. Maldonado 
often uses a #t, which Flores calls geminated ¢, but rejects as “superfluous, since 
the sound of the doubled ¢ is the same as that of the simple.’ The early manu- 
scripts also use pp, obviously for the cut 7’. 

In Pokonchi-Pokoman-Kekchi we find only the #resillo €, evidently for the 
cut k’, though the writers knew of the Parra characters. In modern times Stoll 
found here the full series, except for p’ and ?’; and in the manuscripts it is possible 
that a distinction was felt between ch and ee and between z and t, both of which 
pairs are apparently confused in use—a question which only exhaustive studies 
resulting in definite sound mutation rules between the various Mayance stocks can 
decide correctly. 

In Mame we also find only the tresillo € used, which from Reynoso’s descrip- 
tion of it is clearly identifiable as k’. In Ixil, Stoll found the same series as in Pokom, 
lacking p’ and ?’, and the same remark will also apply here as above, for ch, Eh, 
z, and 8. 

For the Tzental group the difference of orthography impedes inferences; the 
writers make no mention of letras heridas, though the combinations ge and hgce, 
with Pineda’s descriptions, point to a like status with Pokom or Mame. The 
Berendt-Rockstroh word-list indicates clearly the presence of several others, and 
this is confirmed by a number of manuscript Chiapan word-lists in my possession. 

In our Cholti manuscript we find the same orthographic condition as in the 
Pokom and Mame, the € is used as a hard c or k, with considerable confusion, and 
with variations in the different hands, even in some Spanish words, as for example 
Como for como. This must represent the k’, while the use of ch, Eh, z, § may indi- 
cate ch’ and 8’, as above. We have no trace of a ?’, but we have the 9’ clearly 
indicated by such expressions as: “‘apretando los labios, pronunciado con fuerza.” 

In addition to this, my Salto de Agua Chol word-list gives words with ?’, 8, 
ch’, and k’, while the Rockstroh list affords 8’, ch’, and k’. 

We may quite safely credit the Quiché group with all six pairs complete, and 
the Pokom-Mame with all but 9’ and ?’, on the basis of Stoll’s modern field evidence 
and in spite of the lack of showing for it in the manuscripts. —The Maya has all but 
c and k; and finally, the balance of the evidence, I think, inclines to an identity 
here of Cholti with Maya, and not unlikely the Tzental group as well. 

Passing now to a consideration of Mayance grammar, we find to begin with 
a most striking parallel between Cholti and Maya. The basic line of division in 
all Mayance conjugation is that between the neuter verb, the absolute verb and 
the passive verb on the one hand, and the transitive verb on the other; the former 


DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAYANCE LINGUISTIC STOCK. 613 


are conjugated by the demonstrative pronouns, the latter by the possessive, since 
the action is regarded as becoming personal only when it affects some concrete 
object. In the Coronel Maya grammar of 1620 and in the San Buenaventura 
grammar of 1684 we find an exception to this rule, whereby the neuters in the 
present take a special form of the possessive conjugation, leaving the past and 
future in the demonstrative. In 1746 Beltran objected to this as unsystematic, 
and changed it, though he made the result more irregular than ever by changing 
the active present instead of the neuter. But in the Cholti we find this identical 
alleged “irregularity”? found in the Maya of 1620 and 1684, extending even to the 
use of the particle of “‘actuality”’ to define the present tense: ximbal in-cah, yual 
in-vixnel. Cholti also forms a neuter future stem in -ac the same as Maya, and in 
contrast to Quiché; though on the other hand it follows Quiché against Maya in 
using x as a future prefix. 

Finally, and most striking of all, the letter 7 is missing entirely in the Huasteca, 
Maya, [zental, Mame, and Cholti. It is present in the Pokom and Quiché groups, 
with /, being particularly frequent in the Quiché, and in both groups constantly 
replacing a Maya y, as in rax, car, for yax, cay, the words for green and fish in 
Quiché and Maya respectively. In Chorti the / disappears entirely, and all Cholti 
words with / are spelled with an r. This is without exception; all our mentioned 
Cholti sources having only /, and all the Chorti ones having only r._ The Stephens 
list from Zacapa, which we have already classed as Pokoman on the basis of the 
vocabulary, fails as Chorti on this test also, the / occurring three times, in holom, 
hal, akkal, for head, maize-ear, and earth respectively, the very words also being 
Pokoman, and the correct Chorti forms being hor, nar, tiht. The only possible 
conclusion here is that in a town actually Chorti, Stephens got hold of a Pokoman 
native, the border being very near by, and hence his mistake. This is a striking 
instance of how much error can result from such ignorantly gathered word-lists. 
This particular one misled Gallatin, Berendt, Brasseur de Bourbourg, and Stoll 
into placing the Copan dialect in the Pokom group, separating that city linguisti- 
cally from its proper place in the whole Chol region, reaching to: Palenque and 
Ocosingo, and creating thereby a tremendous breach between the linguistic and the 
archzologic evidence. 

This change from / to 7 is most interesting. When I was working out my 
material in 1912 from the Moran manuscript and Membreno, I took it to be a time 
change during the intervening 200 years, between 1695 and 1895, but with the 
evidence of the Galindo manuscript of 1834, discovered a short time ago, this seems 
a very radical change to have come about in only 140 years. But whether tem- 
poral or geographical, there is no possible doubt that the entire region from Copan 
to Palenque is linguistically one. 

The Canon Ordofiez y Aguiar possessed, besides the text of the Popol Vuh, 
of which he has left us a translation distinct from that of Ximénez, a Tzental 
manuscript, which he called the Provanza de Votan, and had this survived it would 
certainly be one of our half-dozen most important Mayance documents, ranking 
with the Popol Vuh, the Xahila Cakchiquel Annals, the Torres Quiché History, 
and the Maya Chumayel and Ritual of the Bacabs. Without going into questions 
of mythology and origins involved in what Ordofiez and Nunez de la Vega tell us 
of Votan and his people, the statement of the former that the Votanides ruled from 
their capital Na-chan, the House of the Serpents, or Palenque, over three other 
divisions of their empire—Yucatan, Tulha (Ocosingo), and Chiquimula—comes 
close enough to history to merit some respect.’ 





1The Canon Ordofiez y Aguiar’s work here referred to is his Historia de la Creacion, etc.” which is still in 
manuscript, though partly printed from an incomplete transcript by Léon. (See Léon, 1907.) The citation 
here made is on page 134, Chapter IX, note 57, page 53 of the manuscript. Brasseur de Bourbourg’s change of 
Yucatan to Mayapan here is gratuitous and misleading. 


614 THE INSCRIPTIONS AT COPAN. 


Weighing all the ethnographic and linguistic evidence at my disposal, the 
following conclusions appear permissible. The Old Maya Empire has now been 
placed beyond reasonable doubt as having enjoyed its bloom period from about 
the year 200 to 600 A. D. This was the period of the great buildings and the per- 
fection of the hieroglyphic writing, the Maya cultural apogee. At our first meeting 
in 1915, and arriving by largely different roads, Morley and I had both come to 
see this great culture as stretching across this “land of Tezulutlan,” north of the 
central Guatemalan Altos—the Petén region—that is, through a tierra caliente, 
a broken country—the land of the great rivers. Of these great cities of the Old 
Maya Empire, Copan appears to me to have been the chief exoteric religious 
center, Palenque the esoteric and most sacred religious center, and Tikal as a 
non-sacred city larger than either, possibly the mart. The chronological and 
cultural unity of these three sites is unmistakable, and the whole district exactly 
maps this Cholti field we have been considering, and which is properly outlined on 
Stoll’s map, plus what we now call Itza territory, which is now linguistically Yucate- 

can Maya. 

At this point a further element enters. About the year 600 (we can only say) 
something happened”’; the culture breaks, and even the large cities were entirely 
abandoned, much the same sort of thing as seems to have taken place in Yucatan 
eight centuries later after the fall of Mayapan, and there due to a mere defeat in 
war, and also just what happened at a stroke at Tayasal when Ursiia conquered 
that city in 1697. We know that after the fall of Mayapan the Itza abandoned 
their homes and went south to Petén, long before the Spanish period; and Morley’s 
idea here, that this was a return to an ancient homeland, seems to me most apt. 

What we do know and may count upon as certain is that with the break-up 
of the Old Empire the te¢hnique of the inscriptions failed somewhat, though 
the knowledge of the writing was not lost altogether. The thread is carried on 
for at least another 800 years of monuments, and then through chronicles and 
manuscripts—the codices—to past the time of the Spanish entry. Broadly speak- 
ing, Maya science did two things: it went north, and it deteriorated greatly, without, 
however, dying out entirely, even to this day. ‘The contents of the different Maya 
manuscripts, the medical lore, and traces of astronomical learning show this. This 
does not mean that much was not preserved in the south also; indeed much was, 
and I am satished learning of even a higher philosophical character than that of 
the north. The south has not yet yielded what it holds—has only glimpsed it to 
us. But the technique of the architecture and the inscriptions did go north, and 
the later southern cities were much inferior in type, not only to those of the Old 
Empire, but also to those of the New Empire in the north. 

Returning once more to our linguistic theme, perhaps the most marked point 
is the separateness structurally of the Quiché-Pokom, the highland Guatemalan 
branches from the others; and the cultural gap in that region, from say 600 A. D. 
to perhaps 1100 A. D., 1s also far greater than in the north. We go back through 
the Quiché manuscripts to origins, to mythology and cosmogony, no doubt, but 
with a cultural and historical gap. Balam Quiché, who united (new) Chiquimula 
to Utatlan, eleven generations before the Spanish Conquest, that is to say, about 
1200, was the “‘ninth”’ in the Quiché line and probably the first historical personage, 
since the one before him was Hunahpi, the divine youth, who was the hero of the 
Popol Vuh; and two reigns before Hunahpti was Acxopil, who reigned 200 years! 
All this agrees not only with the failure of Ordonez to include a Quiché realm in 
his four divisions of the Votanide empire, but also with the linguistic evidence. 
If by “Yucatan” in the citation from Palacio at the head of this Appendix, we 


ce 


DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAYANCE LINGUISTIC STOCK. 615 


i Sos “Laguna de Términos,” it fits in completely with what is said by 
rdonez. 

Linguistically the language of Tezulutlan, or what we have heretofore called 
Cholti, is rooted in northeastern Chiapas, with the Tzental tongues; structurally 
closest stands probably the little-known adjoining Mame, next closest the north- 
ern Maya, and then last the highland pre-Conquest kingdoms of the Quiché and 
Pokom. The letter 7 is unknown to all the other Mayance, save the last two; and 
when they developed it, the same influences seem to have expelled the / from the 
by that time divorced far-eastern Cholti, and left them Chorti. Languages grow 
and diversify under the spur of up-springing civilizations. The separate growth 
of Quiché and Maya, therefore, would correspond to the growth of the two new 
kingdoms; and that the Maya should have stayed closer to the Old Empire tongue, 
the Tezulutleca one may call it, than the Quiché, is to be expected from the now estab- 
lished closer relationship between the Old and New Empires than between the Old 
Empire and the later Guatemala highland kingdoms, both in cultural tradition 
and sciences. Meanwhile the Tzental, Mame, and Cholti would live on, in the 
past, and changing or separating less—just as Iceland has done, compared say 
to Sweden. 

In closing I may say that if we disregard the traditions of the Votanide Empire, 
as pertaining rather more to the realm of mythology than to that of history, and 
if we do not carry history back of the actual Old Empire period, just as later we 
have to reject the events back of Balam Quiché, as probably mythological in nature, 
and if we posit the four kingdoms, as Ordonez gives them: (1) Tul-ha or Ocosingo, 
(2) Na-chan or Palenque, (3) Chiquimula or Copan, and (4) Yucatan or Tikal, as 
we have indicated; if we bring this period to an end with the events of about 600 
A. D., followed by a dispersion and rebirth in the north, toward 900 or 1000, with 
Uxmal as the chief center; and the Nahuatl influx coming in about 1200, resulting 
in the growth of new Chichén Itza, followed by the events of the chronicles in the 
Books of Chilan Balam down to the fall of Mayapan, and the return south of the 
Itza to Tayasal, spreading the newly-grown Maya-Itza tongue over what may 
have been Tezulutleca in Old Empire days; and if meanwhile a historical connec- 
tion was maintained in the south of which we have no present knowledge, resulting 
in a Quiché rebirth somewhat later than that at Uxmal, becoming definitely his- 
torical with Balam Quiché, and his incorporation of the eastern Chiquimula sur- 
vival of the Copan branch—we will have stated little that is new in itself, but we 
will have brought together the ethnographic and linguistic evidence, with the his- 
torical and chronological evidence which has been growng under Morley’s work, 
and with the cultural and very positive stylistic evideice which Spinden has so 
skillfully brought together. 

There remains to be mentioned one final point of no small importance. Prior 
to Mayance times, the Central American territory washed by languages generally 
classed in with northern South American, and now reduced to scantiest remains 
north of Nicaragua, namely, to the little Chiapanec “linguistic island,” in the 
mountain knot of Chiapas, occupying a linguistic position similar to that of the 
Pyrenees or Wales. And finally, that the Tezulutlan empire, starting from around 
Ocosingo, and perhaps by entry through the Usumacinta delta, as Ordonez relates, 
should then have spread first across the fertile northern regions through Peten to 
Golfo Dulce, leaving the mountain range and the Pacific slope to the earlier inhabi- 
tants, is just as natural as it is that its dispersion should have later been down over 
these same northern plains into Yucatan, leaving the highland occupation, with the 
resulting historical Quiché kingdoms, to a later date. 


© 
- 


— &@ 


. ‘ x a e 
: , ale ‘, 
; = : PS ; o ' 
— Kink nae if 
die para eter efiyana 





















7 ‘ - Pa uP a oa Pah we te va 
* Ay ata SA 


; 7 rt £ 
oot te ae 
Uy. eet by ee a, 
‘ 3 Wis Ai ol ou J 
sult mae are fa “oe acete 6 


tA ; ; 
: ‘4 * s ia 


: Pe , od — “ee 7 
ae i Sed wt oh ieee * =a ie J 


Ps ae ta 
oT 
i \ t 7 eo ‘ ’ j, Ne iN aT J 


i Te 


j “] (eee oi weeds ere _ > 4 , 
2 ; ; ad say Sine, \4 eee a 

o : th. OP ea ul he J 
; ivi : ei" aay toa OP a 
rom carte iia  Ge e- Ae 


| | af oie) WA aa 
a eae wl per b ere: pas 


p wim apAs ie ca B "Se 


ey =" een pha wie 


‘ 


aa 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Acuttar, P. SANCHEZ DE. 


1639. (See Sanchez de Aguilar, P.) 
ALForp, W. V. 
1899. Fragments from prehistoric America. 
(Home magazine, Jan. 1899, p. 8-17.) 
ALLEN, E. A. 
1885. The prehistoric world; or, vanished 


races. Cincinnati. 


ALLEN, G. M. 


1910. (See Tozzer, A. M., and G. M. Allen.) 
Atston, E. R. 
1879-1882. Mammalia. (Biologia Centrali-Amer- 
icana, zoology.) 
Ancona, E. 
1878-1905. Historia de Yucatan desde la época 


mas remota hasta nuestros dias. 5 
vols. Mérida. 
ArctowskI, H. 
1910-1913. Studies onclimate and crops. (Amer- 
ican geograph. soc., bull., vol. xlu, p. 
270-282, 481-495; vol. xliv, p. 598- 
606, 745-760; vol. xlv, p. 117-131.) 
ARNOLD, C., and F. J. T. Frost. 
A record of 


1909. The American Egypt. 
travel in Yucatan. New York. 

Avsin, J. M. A. 

1893. (See Codex Aubin, 1576.) 
Bancrort, H. H. 

1882. The native races. 5 vols. San 

. Francisco. 

BELTRAN DE SanTA Rosa, Maria P. 

1746. Arte de el idioma Maya. México. 

1859. Same. Ed. 2. Merida. 
Bevucuat, H. 

1912. Manuel d’archéologie Américaine. p. 


i-xli, 1-773. Paris. 


Boppam WuetTuaM, J. W. 


1877. Across Central America. (185 pages. 
Copan mentioned on p. 168.) 
London. 


Bowoprrcy, C. P. 
1900. The lords of the night and the tona- 
lamatl of the Codex Borbonicus. 
(American anthropologist, new ser., 
vol. 2, p. 145-154.) 
A method which may have been used 
by the Mayas in calculating time. 
Cambridge. 
Memoranda on the Maya calendars 
used in the Books of Chilan Balam. 
(American anthropologist, new ser., 
vol. 3, p. 129-138.) 
On the age of Mayaruins. (American 
anthropologist, new ser., vol. 3, p. 
697-700.) 
Notes on the report of Téobert Maler 
in Memoirs of Peabody museum, vol. 
li, no. i. Cambridge. 
Notes on the report of Téobert Maler 
in Memoirs of Peabody museum, vol. 
ii, no. i. Cambridge. 


190I. 


I9OI, a. 


1901, b. 


I9OT, ¢. 


1903. 





Bowpircu, C. P. 
1903, a. A suggestive Maya inscription. Cam- 
bridge. 
Mexican and Central American an- 
tiquities, calendar systems, and his- 
tory. (Twenty-four papers by Ed- 
uard Seler, E. Forstemann, Paul 
Schellhas, Carl Sapper, E. P. Diesel- 
dorff. Translated from the German 
under supervision of C. P. Bowditch. 
U. S. bureau of American ethnology, 
bull. 28.) Washington. 
The temples of the cross, of the 
foliated cross, and of the sun at 
Palenque. Cambridge. 
The dates and numbers of pages 24 
and 46 to 50 of the Dresden Codex. 
(Putnam anniversary volume, p. 268- 
298.) New York. 
The numeration, calendar systems 
and astronomical knowledge of the 
Mayas. Cambridge. 
Bowpircy, C. P., and F. C. Lowe t. 


1904. 


1906. 


1909. 


1gIo. 


1891. Explorations in Honduras. Boston. 
BrapForp, A. W. 
1841. American antiquities and researches 
into the origin and history of the red 
race. New York. 


BransForbD, J. F. 

1882. Report on explorations in Central 
America in 1881. (Smithsonian insti- 
tution, report for 1882, p. 803-825.) 
BrassEuR DE Boursourg, C. E. 

1857-1859. Histoire des nations civilisées du 
Mexique et de |’Amérique-centrale, 
durant les siécles antérieurs a Chris- 
tophe Colomb. 4 vols. Paris. 

(See Popol vuh. 1861.) 

Palenqué et autres ruines de I’anci- 
enne civilisation du Mexique. Paris. 
Rapport sur les ruines de Mayapan 
et d’Uxmal au Yucatan. (Archives 
de la commission scientifique du 
Mexique, tom. ii, p. 234-288.) 
Extracts from two letters written 
on July 15, 1865, and Dec. 2, 1865. 
(Archives de la commission scien- 
tifique du Mexique, tom. 1, p. 
298-311.) (Brasseur de Bourbourg’s 
visit to Copan in 1863 is described 
in these letters.) 

(See Codex Tro-Cortesianus.) 


1861. 
1866. 


1867. 


1867, a. 


1869-1870. 
Brinton, D. G. 


1882. The Maya chronicles. (Brinton’s 


Library of aboriginal American lit- 
erature, no. i.) Philadelphia. 
American hero-myths. A study in 
the native religions of the western 
continent. Philadelphia. 


617 


1882, a. 


618 


Brinton, D. G. 
1882, b. Books of Chilan Balam. (Penn 
monthly, vol. xiii, p. 261-275; (Re- 
printed by the Numisn®tic and anti- 
quarian society of Philadelphia, _ p. 
I-19.) 
The annals of the Cakchiquels. The 
original text, with a_ translation, 
notes, and introduction. (Brinton’s 
Library of aboriginal American 
literature, no. vi.) Philadelphia. 


1885. 


On the ikonomatic method of pho- 
netic writing with special reference 
to American archeology. (Proc. 
American philos. soc., vol. xxiii, 
Pp. 503-514.) 

The phonetic elements in the graphic 
system of the Mayas and Mexicans. 
(American antiquarian and oriental 
journal, vol. vill, p. 347-357.) 
Critical remarks on the editions of 
Diego de Landa’s writings. (Proc. 
American philos. soc., vol. xxiv, p. 
1-8.) 

Essays of an Americanist. 
delphia. 

The native calendar of Central 
America and Mexico. A study in 
linguistics and symbolism. (Proc. 
American philos. soc., vol. xxxi, p. 
258-314.) 

What. the Maya inscriptions tell 
about. (Archzotogist, vol. il, p. 
325-328.) 

A primer of Mayan hieroglyphics. 
(Univ. Penn. pub., series in phi- 
lology, literature, and archzology, 
vol. ili, no. 2.) 

The myths of the new world. 


1886. 


1886, a. 


1887, 


1890. Phila- 


1893. 


1894. 


1895. 


1896. 
Brooks, C. F. 

1916. World-wide changes of temperature. 
(Geographical review, vol. it, p. 
249-255.) 
CarMABLICcH, J. G. F. R. 

1824. (See Hassel, G., and J. G. F. R. 

Carmablich, 1824.) 


CaRPENTER, F. G. 


1892. Relics of past ages. Interesting dis- 
coveries in Honduras. (Boston 
Herald, July 11, 1892.) 

CarriLLo Y Ancona, C. 

1865. Estudio histérico sobre la_ raza 
indigena de Yucatan. Vera Cruz. 

1870, Disertaci6n sobre la historia de la 
lengua Maya 6 Yucateca. (Revista 
de Mérida, p. 128.) 

1871. Compendio de la historia de Yucatan. 
Merida. 

1883. Historia antigua de Yucatan seguida 


de las disertaciones del mismo 
autor relativas al propio asunto. 
Ed. 2. Mérida. 
CaTHERWOOD, F. 
1844. Views of ancient monuments in Cen- 
tral America, Chiapas, and Yucatan. 


London. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


CENTRAL AMERICA. 


1853. Correspondence as to claims of Great 
Britain relative to the Mosquito 
Coast, Honduras, and Yucatan. U. 
S. Senate doc. 27, 32d Cong., 2d 
Sess., p. I-13. 
CHAMBERLAIN, A. F. 
1899. In memoriam: Daniel Garrison Brin- 


ton. (Jour. American folklore, vol. xii, 
p. 215-225.) 
Cuarnay, D. 


1887. The ancient cities of the new world, 
being travels and explorations in 
Mexico and Central America from 
1857-1882. Translated from the 
French by J. Gonino and Helen S. 


Conant. London. 


Les explorations de Téobert Maler. 
(Société des Américanistes de Paris, 
Journal, new ser., tom. 1, p. 289-308.) 


CuitaM BaLAmM oF CHUMAYEL. 


1903. 


1913. The book of Chilam Balam of Chu- 
mayel, with introduction by G. B. 
Gordon. (Univ. Penn., museum, 
anthropological pubs., vol. v.) Phila- 
delphia. 
Copex AuBIN 1576. 
1893. Histoire de la nation mexicaine 


depuis le départ d’Aztlan jusqu’a 
l’arrivée des conquérants espagnols 
(et au dela 1607). Manuscrit figur- 
atif accompagné de texte en langue 
nahuatl ou mexicaine suivi d’une 
traduction en frangais par feu J. M. 
A. Aubin. Reproduction du codex 
de 1576. Paris. 
Copex Borurinl. 


1831. Fac-simile of an original Mexican 
hieroglyphic painting from the col- 
lection of Boturini. (Kingsborough, 
E. K., Antiquities of Mexico, vol. i, 


no. 3.) London. 
Coprex (Mapas) DE ACOLHUACAN. 
(1889?) Mapas de Acolhuacan. 
Mappe de Tepechpan. Histoire 
synchronique et seigneuriale de 
Tepechpan et de Mexico. 
Copex CorTESIANUS. 
1883. Photographié et publié pour la 
primiére fois par Leén de Rosny. 
Paris. (This is the first part of the 
Codex Tro-Cortesianus). 
Copex DreEsDENSIS. 


Plate iui. 


1880. Die Maya-Handschrift der Konig- 
lichen Bibliothek zu Dresden; her- 
ausgegeben von Prof. Dr. E. Forst- 
emann. Leipzig. 

1892. Same. Ed. 2. Dresden. 

Copex MeEnpoza. 
1831. Copy of the collection of Mendoza 


preserved in the Selden collection of 
manuscripts, in the Bodleian library 
at Oxford. (Kingsborough, E. K., 
Antiquities of Mexico, vol. i, no. 1.) 
London. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


CopEex PERESIANUS. 


1864. 


1887. 


1888. 
1909. 


Copex Rios. 
1900. 


Manuscrit dit Mexicaine No. 2 de 
la Bibhiothéque Impériale. Photo- 
graphié par ordre deS E. M. Duruy, 
Ministre de I’Instruction Publique, 
President de la Commission Scienti- 


fique de Mexique. Paris. 
Manuscrit hiératique des anciens 
Indiens de 1l’Amérique. Centrale 


conserve a la Bibliothéque nationale 
de Paris, avec une introduction par 
Léon de Rosny. (Publié en coleurs. 
Ed..2.) . Paris. 

Same as 1887, but not in colors. 
Redrawn and slightly restored, and 
with the coloring as it originally 
stood, so far as possible, given on the 
basis of a new and minute examina- 
tion of the codex itself. Drawn and 
edited by William Gates. Point Loma. 


(See Codex Vaticanus 3738.) 


Copex TELLERIANO-REMENSIS. 


1899. 


Manuscrit mexicain du cabinet de 
Ch. M. Le Tellier, archevéque de 
Reims a la Bibliothéque nationale 
(Ms. mexicain, no. 385) reproduit 
en photochromographie aux frais du 
Duc de Loubat. 1899. 


CopEx Tro-CorrEsIANUS. 


1892. 


Cédice Maya denominado Corte- 
siano que se conserva en el Museo 
arqueologico nacional (Madrid). 
Reproduccién fotocromolitografica 
ordenada en la misma forma que 
el original hecha y publicada bajo 
la direcci6n de D. Juan de Dios de 
la Rada y Delgado y D. Jerénimo 
Lépez de Ayala y del Hierro. Madrid. 
(Tothis should be added the plates re- 
producing the Codex Troanus taken 
from Abbé C. E. Brasseur de Bour- 
bourg’s Manuscrit Troano. Paris. 
1869-70. These two codices are 
parts of one original.) 


Copex VATICANUS 3738. 


1900. 


Copice PEREZ. 


Il manoscritto messicano vaticano 
3738 detto il Codice Rios. Ripro- 
dotto in fotocromografia a spese di 
sua eccellenza il duca di Loubat per 
cura della biblioteca vaticana. Roma. 


Cronologia antigua de Yucatan y 
examen del método con que los 
Indios contaban el tiempo; sacada 
de varios documentos antiguos por 
Don Juan Pio Pérez. (Manuscript 
in library of museum of University 
of Pennsylvania, p. 1-258.) 


Coco..iupo, D. Lopez DE 


1688. 

1842. 

1867-1868. 
Gooxr,,O; F. 

1909. 


Coronel, J. 
1620. 


Historia de Yucathan. Madrid. 
Same. Ed. 2, 2 vols. Campeche. 
Same. Ed. 3, 2 vols. Mérida. 


Vegetation affected by agriculture in 
Central America. (U. S. bureau of 
plant industry, bull. 145.) 


Arte en lengua de Maya. Mexico. 











Cresson, H. T. 
1892. 


< 
1892, a. 


1892, b. 


Cuntn, S. 
1900. 


619 


Remarks upon the graphic system of 
the ancient Mayas. (Science, vol. 
XG 255 205) 

The antennz and sting of Yikilcab 
as components in the Maya day 
signs. (Science, vol. xx, p. 77-79.) 
Phonetic value of the Ch’i glyph in 
the Maya graphic system. (Science, 
vol. xx, p. IOI-102.) 


Bibliography of Dr. Brinton. (Brin- 
ton memorial meeting. Report of 
the memorial meeting held Jan. 16, 
1900, under the auspices of the 
American philosophical society by 26 
learned societies in honor of the late 
Daniel Garrison Brinton, M. Dy, 5. 
42-67.) Philadelphia. 


DELLENBAUGH, F. S. 


19Ol. 


DiesELporrr, FE 
1904. 


Duron, R. E. 
1909. 


EIsen, G. 


1893-1894. 
FERNANDEZ, L. 
1881. 


1892. 


FewkeEs, J. W. 
1898. 


1904. 


Fores, Fray I. 
1753: 


FORSTEMANN, E. 
1880. 
1887. 


1892. 


The North Americans of yesterday. 
(Brief mention of Copan on p. 242, 


351.) 


aa 


Two vases from Chama, bysh. Py 
Dieseldorff, Eduard Seler, and E. 
Forstemann. (U.S. bureau of Amer- 
ican ethnology, bull. 28, p, 635-666.) 


Las ruinas de Copan. (San Salvador. 
Museo nacional, Anales, tom, 4; 
p. IOO—-I09.) 


Ruins of Copan. (Great divide, vol. x.) 


San Salvador y Honduras el afto 
1576. Con prefacio y notas del 
Dr. A. Frantzius . . . tr. del ale- 
man por Don Manuel Carazo. (Col- 
lecién de documentos para la historia 
de Costa Rica, tom. 1, p. 1-52.) 
Lenguas indigenas de Centro-Amer- 
ica en el siglo XVIII, segun copia 
del Archivo de Indias, hecha por el 
licenciado don Leén Fernandez y 
publicada por Ricardo Fernandez 
Guardia y Juan Fernandez Ferraz 
para el 9° Congreso de Americanistas. 
San José de Costa Rica. 


Archeological expedition to Arizona 
in 1895. (U. S. bureau of Amer- 
ican ethnology, 17th annual report, 
1895-96, p. 519-744.) 

Two summers’ work in pueblo ruins. 
(U. S. bureau of American ethnol- 
ogy, 22d annual report, 1900-01, p. 
1-195.) 


Arte de la lengua metropolitana del 
reyno Cakchiquel 6 Guatemalteco. 
Guatemala. 

W. 

(See Codex Dresdensis.) 

Zur Entzifferung der Mayahand- 
schriften. Dresden. (For transla- 
tion, see U. S. bureau of American 
ethnology, bull. 28, p. 393-472.) 
(See Codex Dresdensis.) 


620 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


FORSTEMANN, E. W. 


1894. 


I9OI. 


1902. 
1902, a. 
1902, b. 
1903. 


1904. 


1904, a. 


1906. 


Franck, H. A. 
1916. 


Die Mayahieroglyphen (Globus, Bd. 
XLVI, p. 78-80.) 

Commentar zur Mayahandschrift der 
Koniglichen 6ffentlichen Bibliothek 
zu Dresden. Dresden. (For transla- 
tion, see E. W. Forstemann, 1906.) 
Der zehnte Cyklus der Mayas. 
(Globus, Bd. Ixxxii, p. 140-143.) 
Commentar zur Madrider Maya- 
handschrift. Dantzig. 

Eine historische Maya-Inschrift. 
(Globus, Bd. Ixxxi, p. 150-153.) 
Commentar zur Pariser Mayahand- 
schrift. Dantzig. 

Aids to the deciphering of the Maya 
manuscripts. (U.S. bureau of Amer- 
can ethnology, bull. 28, p. 393-472.) 
Die Stela J von Copan. (Globus, Bd. 
Ixxxv, p. 361-363.) 

Commentary on the Maya manu- 
script in the Royal public library of 
Dresden. (Harvard univ., Peabody 
museum papers, vol. iv, no. 2, p. 
49-266; translation of E. W. Forste- 
mann, IgOI.) 


Tramping through Mexico, Guate- 
mala, and Honduras. (Brief mention 
of Copan on p. 291, 292.) New York. 


FrANTzIuS, A. VON. 


1873. 


Frost, F. J. T. 
1909. 


San Salvador und Honduras im Jahre 
1576. (Amtlicher Bericht des Licen- 
ciaten Dr. Diego Garcia de Pal- 
acio.) Berlin. 


(See Arnold, C., and F. J. T. Frost.) 


FurENTEs y GuzMAn, F. A. DE 


1689. 


1882-1883. 


Historia de Guatemala, 6 Recorda- 
cién Florida. Pt. 2,4 vols. (Photo- 
graphic reproduction by W. Gates 
of manuscript copy by Mariano 
Padilla. Original Fuentes y Guz- 
man manuscript now in the archives 
of the cabildo of Guatemala city, 
Guatemala.) 

Historia de Guatemala 6 Recorda- 
cién Florida escrita el siglo xvii . 
Publicada por primera vez con notas 
é illustraciones. D. Justo Zaragoza. 


Pt. 1,2 vols. Madrid. 


Gaceta OFICIAL DE Honpuras. 


1868. 


Ga.inpo, J. 
1834. 


1835. 


Relaci6n importante. (Gaceta oficial 
de Honduras, tom. 6, no. 91, p. I-4, 
Nov. 11, 1868.) 


Informe de la Comisi6én Cientifica 
formada para el reconocimiento de 
las Antigiiedades de Copan, por 
decreto de 15 de Enero de 1834 del 
ce? gefe supremo del Estado de Guate- 
mala, Dr. Mariano Galvez. (Manu- 
script Gates collection.) (For trans- 
lation, see Appendix XI.) 

Central America. (London literary 
gazette and journal of belles lettres, 
arts, sciences, no. 965, p. 456, 457.) 





GatInpbo, J. 
1835, a. 


1836. 


1836, a. 


The ruins of Copan, in Central 
America. (Archzologia Americana. 
Transactions and collections of the 
American antiquarian society, vol. 
li, P. 543-550.) 

Une lettre en 36 pages dateé de Copan 
avec dix dessins assez bien exécutés. 
(Bulletin de la société de géo- 
graphie, deuxiéme série, tom. v, p. 
253-291. Paris. See also Walckenaer, 
Baron, and others.) 


Notions transmises par M. Juan 
Galindo, officier supérieur de l’Amér- 
ique Centrale, sur Palenque et 
autres lieux circonvoisins. (Anti- 
quités mexicaines, tom. 1, p. 67-76.) 
Paris. 


GALLATIN, ALBERT. 


1845. 


Gann, T. 
1900. 


1919. 


Notes on the semi-civilized nations of 
Mexico, Yucatan, and Central Amer- 
ica. (Trans. American ethnological 
society, vol. i, p. 1-352.) New York. 


Mounds of Northern Honduras. 
(U. S. bureau of American ethnology, 
19th annual report, 1897-98, pt. 2, p. 
661-692.) 

The Maya Indians of southern Yu- 
catan and northern British Hon- 
duras. (U. S. bureau of American 
ethnology, bull. no. 64.) 


Garcia PELAeEz, F. DE P. 


1851-1852. 
Gates, W. E. 

1900. 

IgIO. 


GatscueET, A. S. 
1897. 


1902. 


GinZEL, F. K. 
1906-1914. 


Gopman, F. D. 
1897-1904. 


Memorias para la historia dei anti- 
guo reino de Guatemala. 3 vols. 
Guatemala, 


The Maya and Tzental calendars. 
Comprising the complete series of 
days, with -their positions in the 
month, for each one of the fifty-two 
years of the cycle, according to each 
system. Cleveland. 


Commentary upon the Maya-Tzental 
Codex Pérez. (Harvard univ., Pea- 
body museum papers, vol. vi, no. I, 
p. I-64.) 


Die Erforschung der Ruinen von 
Copan in Honduras. (Globus, Bd. 
Ixxi, p. 99.) 

The hieroglyphic stairway, ruins of 
Copan. By George Byron Gordon. 
(A review.) (American anthropolo- 
gist, new ser., vol. 4, p. 302, 303.) 


Handbuch der mathematischen und 
technischen Chronologie. 3 vols. 
Leipzig. 


(See Salvin, O., and F. D. Godman.) 


GoLpDENWEISER, A. A. 


1916. 


Diffusion vs. independent origin: a 
rejoinder to Professor G. Elliot 
Smith. (Science, new ser., vol. xliv, 


P. 531-533.) 


Goopman, J. T. 
1897. 


1905. 


Gorpon, G. B. 
1896. 


1898. 


1898, a. 


1898, b. 


1899. 


1901. 


1902. 


1902, a. 


1902, b. 


1909. 


1913. 
1914. 


1916. 


1918. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


The archaic Maya inscriptions. (Bio- 
logia Centrali-Americana, archzol- 
ogy. Appendix.) London. 

Maya dates. (American anthropolo- 
gist, new ser., vol. 7, p 642-647.) 


Prehistoric ruins of Copan, Hon- 
duras. A preliminary report of the 
explorations by the museum, 1891- 
1895. (Harvard univ., Peabody 
museum memoirs, vol. 1, no. I, p. 
1-48. For Spanish translation see 
G. B. Gordon, 1914.) 

The mysterious city of Honduras. 
An account of recent discoveries in 
Copan. (Century, vol. lv, p. 407- 
419.) 

Researches in the Uloa Valley, Hon- 
duras. Report on explorations by 
the museum, 1896-97. (Harvard 
univ., Peabody museum memoirs, 
vol. i, no. 4, p. 93-136. For Spanish 
translation, see G. B. Gordon, 1914.) 
Caverns of Copan, Honduras. Re- 
port on explorations by the museum, 
1896-97. (Harvard univ., Peabody 
museum memoirs, vol. i, no. 5, p. 
137-148. For Spanish translation see 
G. B. Gordon, 1914.) 

The ruined city of Copan. (American 
geograph. soc., bull., vol. xxxi, p. 39- 
50.) 

The wonderful city of Copan. (Daily 
Picayune, New Orleans, La. Oct. 
20, I9OI.) 

The hieroglyphic stairway, ruins of 
Copan. Report on exploraticns by 
the museum. (Harvard univ., Pea- 
body museum memoirs, vol. 1, no. 6, 
p. 149-186. For Spanish translation 
see G. B. Gordon, 1914.) 

On the interpretation of a certain 
group of sculptures at Copan. (Amer- 
ican anthropologist, new ser., vol. 4, 
p. 130-143.) 

On the use of zero and twenty in the 
Maya time system. (American an- 
thropologist, new ser., vol. 4, p. 237- 
275.) 

Conventionalism and_ realism in 
Maya art at Copan, with special 
reference to the treatment of the 
macaw. (Putnam anniversary vol- 
ume, p. Ig1-195.) New York. 
(See Chilam Balam of Chumayel.) 
Ruinas prehistoricas de Copan. Tra- 
ducido del Inglés por Juan A. Soto 
Mayor. (El Comercio, San Pedro 
Sula, Honduras, Febr. and March, 
1914.) 

A contribution to the archeology of 


Middle America. (Holmes anni- 
versary volume, p. 137-141.) Wash- 
ington. 

The trail of the golden dragon. 


(Univ. Penn. museum journal, vol. 1x, 
p. 29-38.) 








621 


Gratacap, L, P. 


1885. Ruins at Palenque and Copan. 


(American antiquarian and oriental 


journal, vol. vii, p. 193-207.) 
Guarpia, R. F., y J. F. Ferraz. 


1892. (See Fernandez, L., 1892.) 
Guernsey, S. J. 

1919. (See Kidder, A. V., and S. J. 

Guernsey.) 
Gutue, C. E. 

1920. A possible solution of the number 
series on pages 51 to 58 of the Dres- 
den Codex. (Harvard univ., Pea- 
body museum papers, vol. vi, No. 2. 

Hany, J. T. E. 

1886(?) Essai d’interprétation d’un des monu- 
ments de Copan (Honduras). (De- 
cades americanez, Mémoires d’ar- 
chéologie et d’ethnographie améri- 
caines, 1" and 2° Décades, p. 83-89.) 
Paris. 

HassEL, G., and J. G. F. R. CarmaB.icn. 
1824. Vollstandige und neueste Erdbe- 


schreibung von Reiche Mexico, Gua- 
temala und West Indien. Weimar. 
HELLAND-Hanskew, B., and F. NaNnsEN. 

1916. Temperaturschwankungen des Nord- 
atlantischen Ozeans und in der 
Atmosphare. LEinleitende Studien 
iiber die Ursachen der klimatologi- 
schen Schwankungen. (Videnskabs- 
selskabet-Skrifter, Math. Naturv. 
Klasse, 1916, Art. 9, p. I-3.41.) 

Hewett, E. L. 
IQII. Two seasons’ work in Guatemala. 

(Archeological institute of America, 

bull., vol. ii, p. 117-134.) 

The excavations at Quirigua in 1912. 

(Archeological institute of America, 

bull., vol. iii, p. 163-171.) 

Latest work of school of American 

archeology at Quirigua. (Holmes 

anniversary volume, p. 157-162.) 

Washington. 

HILDERBRANDSSON. 

1916. (Summary in Nature. vol. 97, p. 228, 
of Hilderbrandsson’s article appearing 
in Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapsakede- 
mines Handlingar, Bd. 51, no. 8.) 


1912. 


1916. 


Hoipen, E. S. 


1881. Studies in Central American picture- 
writing. (U. S. bureau of American 
ethnology, Ist annual report, 1879- 
80, p. 205-245.) 
Homes, W. H. 
1907. On a nephrite statuette from San 


Andrés Tuxtla, Vera Cruz, Mexico. 
(American anthropologist, new ser., 
vol. 9, p. 691-701.) 

Honpuras ExPepIrIon. 


1891. The Honduras expedition, (Harpers 
weekly, vol. xxxv, no. 1823, Nov. 
28, 1891, p. 943.) 
Houcu, W. 
1914. Culture of the ancient pueblos of the 


upper Gila River region, New Mexico 
and Arizona. Second Museum- 
Gates expedition. (U. S. national 
museum, bull. 87.) Washington. 


622 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Howe, G. P. 
Igtl. The Ruins of Tuloom. (American 
anthropologist, new. ser., vol. 13, p. 
539-550.) 


Hro.icka, A. — 
1903. The region of the ancient “Chichi- 
mecs,” with notes on the Tepecanos 
and the ruin of La Quemada, Mexico. 
(American anthropologist, new ser., 
vol. 5, p. 385-440.) 
Humpso tpt, A. DE. 

1827. Etat présent de la République de 
Centro-America ou Guatémala, 
d’aprés des documents manuscrits. 
(Nouvelles annales des voyages, 
vol. 35, p. 281-330.) Paris. 

Huntincron, E. 
1905S. Explorations in Turkestan, with an 
account of the basin of Eastern 
Persia and Sistan. (Carnegie Inst. 

Wash. pub. no. 26, p. 157-315.) 

1907. The pulse of Asia. A journey in 
Central Asia, illustrating the geo- 
graphic basis of history. Boston. 


IQII. Palestine and its transformation. 
Boston. 
1913. Guatemala and the highest native 


American civilization. (Proc. Amer- 
ican philos. soc., vol. lii, p. 467-487.) 

1914. The climatic factor as illustrated in 
arid America. . . with contributions 
by Charles Schuchert, Andrew E. 
Douglass, and Charles J. Kullmer. 
(Carnegie Inst. Wash. pub. no. 192.) 

1915. Civilization and climate. New Haven. 

1917. Maya civilization and_ climatic 
changes. (Proc. International con- 
gress of Americanists, 19th sess., p. 
150-164, 1915.). Washington. 

1918. The sun and the weather: new light 
on their relation. (Geographical 
review, vol. 5, p. 483-491.) 

IsAGOGE HISTORICO. 

1892. Isagoge histérico apologético general 

de todas las Indias. Madrid. 


Joyce, T. A. 
1913. (See Maudslay, A. P., and T. A. 
Joyce.) 
194. Mexican archeology. New York. 
Juarros, D. 
1808. Compendio de la historia de la ciudad 
de Guatemala. Guatemala. 
1823. Same. English ed. London. 
1857. Same. Ed. del museo guatemalteco, 


2 vols. Guatemala. 
Kipper, A. V., and S. J. Guernsey. 

1919. Archeological explorations in north- 
eastern Arizona. (U. S. bureau of 
American ethnology, bull. 65.) Wash- 
ington. 

KincsBoroucu, E. K., 

1831-1848. Antiquities of Mexico. g vols. Lon- 

don. 
LanpaA, D. DE. 

1864. Relation des choses de Yucatan. . 
texte espagnol et traduction fran- 
gaise. .. par l’Abbé Brasseur de 
Bourbourg. Paris. 








Lanpa, D. DE. 

1881. Relacién de las cosas de Yucatan. 
1566. Reprint 1881. (Rosny, L. de. 
Ensayo sobre la interpretacién de 
la escritura hieratica de la América 
Central. Traducci6n anotada y 
precedida de un prélogo por D. Juan 
de Dios de la Rada y Delgado. 
Apéndice 1, p. 71-114.) Madrid. 

1900. Relacién de las cosas de Yucatan. 
(Colecci6n de documentos inéditos 
relativos al descubrimiento, con- 
quista y organizacion de las antiguas 
posesiones espanolas de Ultramar, 
ser. 2, tom. 13, p. 265-411.) 

La RocHEFOUCAULD, F. A. DE. 

1888. Palenque et la civilisation maya. 

Paris. 
LEEMANS, C. 

1878. Description de quelques antiquités 
amé€ricaines conservées dans le Musée 
royal néerlandais d’antiquités, a 
Leide. (International congress of 
Americanists, 2d session, Luxem- 
bourg, 1877; Comptes-rendus, tom. 
2, p. 283-302.) 

LEHMANN, W. 

1909. Methods and results in Mexican 
research. (Translated from the Ger- 
man by Seymour de Ricci. Paris. 
Originally published in the Archiv 
fiir Anthropologie, vol. vi, 1907, p. 
113-168.) 

1910. Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise in 
Mittelamerika und México 1907- 
1909. (Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologie, 
Bd. 42, p. 687-749.) 

Leon, N. 

1907. Bibliografia Mexicana del siglo xviu, 
seccion I. pt. 4. Mexico. (Con- 
tains part of Ordonez y Aguiar, ca. 
1790.) 

Leon PineE1o, A. DE. 

1639. Relacién en el Consejo Real de las 
Indias, sobre la pacificacién y 
poblacién de las provincias del 
Manché; Lacandon, que pretende 
hazer Don Diego de Vera Ordonez de 
Villaquiran. 

Le Pionceon, A. 

1885. The Maya alphabet. (Scientific 
American, supplement, vol. xix, no. 
474, P- 7572-7573-) 

1886. Sacred mysteries among the Mayas 
and the Quiches, 11,500 years ago. 
New York. 

Lizana, B. DE. 

1893. Historia de Yucatan. Devocionario 
de Ntra. Sra. de Izamal y conquista 
espiritual. (Reprint, including fac- 
simile of title-page of original edition, 
Valladolid, 1633.) México. 

Lopez pE AYALA Y DEL Hierro, J. 
1892. (See Codex Tro-Cortesianus.) 
Léprez DE Cocotiupo, D. 
(See Cogolludo, D. Lépez de, 1688.) 
Lousat, J. F. puc peg. 
1899. (See Codex Telleriano-Remensis.) 
1900. (See Codex Vaticanus 3738.) 


i ae 


LowELL, F. C. 
1891. 


Lumuo mz, C. 
1902. 
Mater, T. 


IgOI. 


1903. 


1908. 


1908, a. 


IQIt. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


(See Bowditch, C. P., and F. C. 
Lowell.) 


Unknown Mexico. 2 vols. New York. 


Researches in the central portion of 
the Usumatsintla valley. Report of 
explorations for the museum, 1898- 
1900. (Harvard univ., Peabody mus- 
eum memoirs, vol. ii, no. I, p. I-75.) 
Researches in the central portion of 
the Usumatsintla valley. Reports 
of explorations for the museum. 
(Harvard univ., Peabody museum 
memoirs, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 77-208.) 
Explorations of the upper Usuma- 
tsintla and adjacent region. Altar 
de Sacrificios; Seibal; Itsimté-Sac- 
luk; Cankuen. Reports of explora- 
tions for the museum. (Harvard 
univ., Peabody museum memoirs, 
vol. iv, no. I, p. I-49.) 

Explorations in the department of 
Peten, Guatemala, and adjacent 
region. Topoxté; Yaxha; Benque 
Viejo; Naranjo. Reports of explora- 
tions for the museum. (Harvard 
univ., Peabody museum memoirs, 
vol. iv, no. 2, p. 53-127.) 
Explorations in the department of 
Peten, Guatemala. Tikal. Report 
of explorations for the museum. 
(Harvard univ., Peabody museum 
memoirs, vol. v, no. I, p. I-91.) 


Mapre pve TEPECHPAN 


Maupsiay, A. C. 


1899. 


Maupstay, A. P. 
1886. 


1889-1902. 


1892. 


Maupstay, A. P. 
1913. 


Means, P. A. 
1916. 


1917. 


1917, a. 


(See Codex (Mapas) de Acolhuacan.) 
and A. P. 

A glimpse at Guatemala and some 
notes on the ancient monuments of 
Central America. London. 


Exploration of the ruins and site of 
Copan, Central America. (Proc. 
Royal geographical society, new 
ser., vol. vill, p. 568-595, plate and 
map opposite p. 608.) London. 
Archeology. (Biologia  Centrali- 
Americana, 4 vols.) London. 
The ancient civilization of Central 
America. (Nature, vol. 45, p. 617- 
622.) 


,and T. A Joyce. 


A study of Maya art. By Herbert J. 
Spinden. (Review, in Current an- 
thropological literature, vol. i, p. 


238-247.) 


Some objections to Mr. Elliot Smith’s 
theory. (Science, new ser., vol. 
xliv, p. 533-534.) 

History of the Spanish conquest of 
Yucatan and of the Itzas. (Harvard 
univ., Peabody museum papers, vol. 
vil.) Cambridge. 

A survey of ancient Peruvian art. 
(Trans. Connecticut acad. arts and 
sciences, vol. 21, p. 315-442.) 


Means, P. A. 
1918. 


Mepina, J T. 
1913. 


623 


Las relaciones entre Centro América 
y Sud-América en la época prehis- 
torica. (Sociedad geografica de 
Lima, Boletin, tom. xxxili, p. 151- 
170.) 


Fray Diego de Landa inquisidor de 
los Indios en Yucatan. (Proc. 
International congress of Ameri- 
canists, 18th sess., 1912, pt. I, p. 
484-496.) London, 


MeErnsHAusen, M. 


1913. 


Memsre_eNo, A. 
1895. 
1897. 
1912. 


Mercer, H. C. 
1896. 


Uber Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse 
in der Dresdener Mayahandschrift. 
(Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologie, Bd. xlv, 
p. 221-227.) 


Hondurefismos. Tegucigalpa. 


Same. Ed. 2. Tegucigalpa. 
Same. Ed. 3. Notablemente corr. 
yaun. Méjico. 


Phila- 


The hill-caves of Yucatan. 
delphia. 


Moturna Sotts, J. F. 


1896. 


1897. 


1904. 


Mortey, R. K. 
1918. 


Mor ey, S. G. 


1909. 


IgIo. 


1910, a. 


Igit. 


IQII, a. 


Igit, b. 


IOLI yc: 


Historia del descubrimiento y con- 
quista de Yucatan con una resefa 
de la historia antigua de esta penin- 
sula. Merida. 

El primer obispado de la naci6n 
mejicana. Mérida. 

Historia de Yucatan durante la do- 
minacion Espanola. 3 vols. Mérida. 


On computations for the Maya 
calendar. (American anthropologist, 
new ser., vol. 20, p. 49-61.) 


The inscriptions of Naranjo. north- 
ern Guatemala. (American anthro- 
pologist, new ser, vol. 11, p. 543- 
562.) 

A group of related structures at 
Uxmal, Mexico. (American jour- 
nal of archeology, 2d ser., vol. xiv, 
p. I-18.) 

The correlation of Maya and Chris- 
tian chronology. (American jour- 
nal of archzology, 2d ser., vol. xiv, 
P. 193-204.) 

The historical value of the books of 
Chilan Balam. (American journal 
of archeology, 2d ser., vol. xv, p. 
195-214.) 

Ancient temples and cities of the 


new world. Chichen Itza. (Pan- 
American union, bull., vol. xxxi, 
P. 453-468.) 


Ancient temples and cities of the 
new world Uxmal, the city of the 
Xius. (Pan-American union, bull., 
vol. xxxii, p. 627-642.) 

Ancient temples and cities of the 
new world. Copan, the mother city 
of the Mayas. (Pan-American union, 
bull., vol. xxxii, p. 863-878.) 


624 


Mortey, S. G. 
1912. 


1913. 


1913, a. 


1914. 


I9I5. 


IQI5, a. 


1916. 


1916, a. 


1917. 


1917, a. 


1917, b. 


1917, ¢. 


1918. 


1918, a. 
1919. 
1919, a. 


Morris, E. H. 
1919. 


NaDAILLac, J. F. 
1883. 

NansEN, F. 
1916. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Quirigua, an American town 1,400 
years old. (Scientific American, vol. 
evil, p. 96, 97, 105.) 

Excavations at Quirigua, Guatemala. 
(National geographic magazine, 
vol. xxiv, pt. I, p. 339-361.) 
Archeological research at the ruins 
of Chichen Itza, Yucatan. (Car- 
negie Inst. Wash. pub. no. 200, p. 
61-91. Reports upon the present 
condition and future needs of the 
science of anthropology presented by 
W. H. R. Rivers, A. E. Jenks, and 
S. G. Morley.) Washington. 
Archeology. (Carnegie Inst. Wash. 
Year Book, no. 13, p. 233.) 

An introduction to the study of the 
Maya _ hieroglyphs. Washington. 
(U. S. bureau of American ethnol- 
ogy, bull. 57.) 

Archeology. (Carnegie Inst. Wash. 
Year Book, no. 14, p. 343-346.) 
The supplementary series in the 
Maya inscriptions. (Holmes anni- 
versary volume, p. 366-396.) Wash- 
ington. 

Archeology. (Carnegie Inst. Wash. 
Year Book, no. 15, p. 337-341.) 
The ruins of Tuloom, Yucatan. The 
record of a visit of the Carnegie 
Institution Central American expedi- 
tion, 1916, to an important but little 
known ancient, Maya city. (Ameri- 
can museum journal, vol. xvii, p. 
190-204.) 

The rise and fall of the Maya civil- 
ization in the light of the monuments 
and the native chronicles. (Proc. 
International congress of Ameri- 
canists, 19th sess., Washington, 1915, 
p. 140-149. republished in Proc., 
Pan-American scientific congress, 2d 
sess., 1915-1916.) Washington. 
The hotun as the principal chrono- 
logical unit of the old Maya empire. 
(Proc. International congress of 
Americanists, 19th sess., p. 195-201, 
1915.) Washington. 

Archeology. (Carnegie Inst. Wash. 
Year Book, no. 16, p. 285-289.) 
The Guatemala earthquake. (Amer- 
ican museum journal, vol. xviii, p. 
200-210.) 

Archeology. (Carnegie Inst. Wash. 
Year Book, no. 17, p. 269-276.) 
Archeology. (Carnegie Inst. Wash. 
Year Book, no. 18, p. 317-321.) 
Review of J. T. Goodman’s life and 
work. (American anthropologist, 
new ser., vol. 21, p. 441-445.) 


The Aztec ruin. (American museum 
of natural history, anthropological 
papers, vol. xxvi, p. 1-108.) 

A. pU POUGET, MARQUIS DE. 
L’Amérique préhistorique. Paris. 


(See Helland-Hansen, B., and F. 


Nansen.) 








NorTIcE SUR LE Y 
1843. 


UCATHAN. 

Notice sur le Yucathan tirée des 
écrivains espagnols. (Nouvelles an- 
nales des voyages, tom. 97. p. 30-52.) 
Paris. 


OrpoNez y AGUIAR. 


ca. 1790. 


Orozco y BERRA 
1864. 


Historia de la creacion, conforme 
al sistema de la gentilidad ameri- 
cana. Manuscript. (See N. Leon, 
1907, p. I-272.) 

Geografia de las lenguas y carta 
etnografica de México. Precedidas 
de un ensayo de clasificaci6n de las 
mismas lenguas y de apuntes para 
las inmigraciones de las tribus. 
México. 


Paracio, D. G. bE. 


1576. 


English Editions. 


See Squier, 1858, p. 241, 242. 
See Squier, 1860, p. 88-97. 


See Mau 
5-7: 


dslay, 1889-1902, vol. i of text, p. 


See Gordon, 1896, p. 45-48 
Spanish Editions. 
See Pacheco, 1866, tom. vi, p. 37-39. 
See Gaceta Oficial (of Honduras) tom. 6, 
no. 91, p. 1-4, Nov. 11, 1868. 


See Fern 


andez, L., 1881, tom. i, p. I-52. 


See Gordon, 1914. 
French Editions. 


See Tern 


aux Compans, 1840, p. 42-44. 


See Notice sur le Yucathan, 1843, tom. xevil, 
p. 38-40. 


G 


See Fran 
PacHeEco, J. F. 
1866. 


Peccorin], A. 
1909. 


1909, a. 


1909, 0. 


1909, ¢. 


1910. 


1918. 


PENAFIEL, A. 
1885. 


erman Edition. 
tzius, 1873, p. 1-62. 


Relaci6én hecha por el Licenciado D. 
Palacio al Rey D. Felipe II, enla que 
describe la provincia de Guatemala, 
las costumbres de los Indios y otras 
cosas notables. (Pacheco, J. F., and 
others, ed. Coleccién de documentos 
inéditos relativos al descubrimiento, 
conquista y colonizacién de _ las 
posesiones espanolas en América y 
Oceania, tom. vi, p. 5-40.) Madrid. 


Excursionistas Salvadorefios en Hon- 
duras. (Diario del Salvador, Agosto 
9, 1909.) San Salvador. 

Ruinas de Copan. (Revista Centro 
América intelectual, p. 47-56.) San 
Salvador. t 
Ligeros apuntes sobre el dialecto 
Camotan (Revista Centro America 
intelectual, p. 79-83.) San Salva- 
dor. 

Las ruinas de Copan (Diario del 
Salvador, Septiembre 10, 1909.) San 
Salvador. 

Copan. (Enciclopedia universal ilus- 
trada Europea-Americana, tom. xv, 
p. 368-373.) 

Conferencia sobre la civilizacién de 
los Mayas y las ruinas de Copan. 
San Salvador. 

de México. 


Nombres_ geograficos 


Mexico. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


PEncK, A. 

1914. The shifting of the climatic belts. 
(Scottish geographical magazine, 
vol. xxx, p. 281-293.) 

Pinart, A. 

1883. Catalogue de livres rares et précieux, 
manuscrits et imprimés, principale- 
ment sur l’Amérique et sur les langues 
du monde entiers, composant la 
bibliothéque de M. Alph. L. Pinart 
et comprenant en totalité la biblio- 
théque Mexico-Guatémalienne de M. 
Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg. Paris. 

PINEDA, V. 

1888. Historia de las sublevaciones in- 
digenas habidas en el estado de 
Chiapas. Gramatica de la lengua 
tzel-tal. Chiapas. 

Ponce, A. 
1872. Relacién breve y verdadera de 


algunas cosas de las muchas que 
sucedieron al Padre Fray Alonso 
Ponce, en las provincias de la Nueva 
Espana, siendo comisario general de 
aquellas partes. . . escrita por dos 
religiosos. (Coleccién de documentos 
inéditos para la historia de Espana. 
vols, xvii and xvii.) Madrid. 
Porenog, W. 
1919. The avocado in Guatemala. (U. S. 
department of agriculture, bull. 
743.) Washington. 
The useful plants of Copan. (Ameri- 
can anthropologist, new ser., vol. 21, 


p. 125-138.) 


1919, a. 


PopoL vVuUH. 
1861. Popol vuh. Le livre sacré et les 
mythes de l’antiquité américaine, 
avec les livres héroiques des Quichés 
... Texte quiché et traduction 
francaise, accompagnée de_ notes 
philologiques et d’un commentaire 
sur la mythologie et les migrations 
des peuples anciens de l’Amérique 
par l’Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg. 
Paris. 
Prieto, A. 
1873. Historia, geografia y estadistica del 
estado de Tamaulipas. Mexico. 
Tribus indigenas de Tamaulipas. 
Victoria. 
Rapa y Detcapo, JuAN pe Dios DE LA. 
1881. (See D. de Landa. 1881.) 
1892. (See Codex Tro-Cortesianus.) 
RELACIONES DE YUCATAN. 
1898-1900. Relaciones histério-geograficas de las 
provincias de Yucatan. 2 vols. 
Madrid. (Coleccién de documentos 
inéditos relativos al descubrimiento 
conquista y organizacion de las anti- 
guas posesiones espafiolas de Ultra- 
mar., ser. 2, tom, II, 13.) 
Reynoso, Fray D. 
1897. Arte y vocabulario en lengua Mame. 
Mexico, 1644; reprint, Paris, 1897. 


IQII. 


Rosny, L. pe. 
1876. Essai sur le déchiffrement de 1’écri- 
ture hiératique de l’Amérique Cen- 


trale. Paris. 


625 


Rosny, L. pe. 


1883. Codex Cortesianus. Manuscrit 
hiératique des anciens indiens de 
l’Amérique centrale. Paris. 

1888. (See Codex Peresianus.) 

SaLvin, O. 

1863. Description of photographs of ruins 

of Copan. 
THE RUINS OF CoPAN. 
1864. (Illustrated London news. Jan. 16, 


1864. Perhaps contains first repro- 
ductions made from photographs of 
the monuments, taken by Salvin 
before 1863.) 
SALvin, O., and F. D. Gopman. 
1897-1904. Aves. (Biologia Centrali-Americana, 
zoology, 4 vols. London.) 
SAN BUENAVENTURA, FRay G. 
1684. Arte de la lengua Maya. Mexico. 
SANCHEZ DE AGUILAR, P. 
1639. Informe contra idolorum cultores del 
Obispado de Yucatan. Madrid. 
SAPPER, K. 
1897. Das nordliche Mittel-Amerika nebst 
einem Ausflug nach dem Hochland 
von Anahuac. Reisen und Studien 
aus den Jahren 1888-1895. Braun- 
schweig. 
Uber Gebirgsbau und Boden des 
nordlichen Mittelamerika. Gotha. 
(Petermann’s Mitteilungen Ergan- 
zungsband xxvil, Erganzungsheft no. 
127.) 
Der gegenwartige Stand der ethno- 
graphischen Kenntnis von Mittel- 
Amerika. (Archiv fiir Anthropologie, 
neue folge, Bd. i11, p. 1-38.) 


1899. 


1905. 


SAVILLE, M. H. 
1892. Explorations on the main structure 
of Copan, Honduras. (Abstract.) 
(Proc., American association for ad- 
vancement of science, 41st sess., 
p. 271-275.) Rochester. 
Explorations at Copan, Honduras. 
(Scientific American, supplement,vol. 
Xxxiv, no. 870, p. 13904.) 
A comparative study of the graven 
glyphs of Copan and Quirigua. A 
preliminary paper. (Journal of Amer- 
ican folk-lore, vol. vil, p. 237-243.) 
The glazed ware of Central America, 
with special reference to a whistling 
jar from Honduras. (Holmes anni- 
versary volume, p. 421-426.) Wash- 
ington. 


1892, a. 


1894. 


1916. 


ScHELLHAS, P. 
1904. Representation of deities of the Maya 
manuscripts. Ed. 2. Translated by 
Selma Wesselhoeft and A. M. Parker. 
(Harvard univ., Peabody museum 
papers, vol. iv, no. I, p. I-47.) 
ScHERZER, K. RITTER VON. 
1857. Travels in the free states of Central 
America: Nicaragua, Honduras, and 
San Salvador. (2 vols. London. 
Translation from the author’s Wan- 
derungen durch die Mittel-Ameri- 
kanischen Freistaaten.) 


626 


Scumipt, J. 
1883. 


ScuraM, R. 
1908. 


SELER, E. 
1899. 


1900. 


1902-1908. 


1904. 


1904, a. 


SHORT; Joule 
1880. 


Simeon, R, 
1885. 


SmirtH, G. E. 


IgI5—-1916, 


1916-1917. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Die Steinbildewerke von Copan und 
Quirigua. (English translation by 
A. D. Savage in 1883, published in 
New York.) 


Kalendariographische und chronolo- 
gische Tafeln. Leipzig. 


Die Monumente von Copan und 
Quirigua und die Altar-Platten von 
Palenque. (Berliner Gesellschaft 
fiir Anthropologie, Ethnologie und 
Urgeschichte. Verhandlungen, Jahr- 
gang 1899, p. (670)-(738.) Published 
in Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologie, Bd. 
XXXI.) 

Einiges mehr iiber die Monumente 
yon Copan und Quirigua. (Berliner 
Gesellschaft fiir Anthropologie, Eth- 
nologie und Urgeschichte. Verhand- 
lungen, Jahrgang 1900, p. (188)- 
(227.) Published in Zeitschrift fiir 
Ethnologie, Bd. xxxii.) 

Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Am- 
erikanischen Sprach- und Alter- 
thumskunde. 3 vols. Berlin. 

The Mexican picture writings of 
Alexander von Humboldt in the 
Royal library at Berlin (U. S. 
bureau of American ethnology, bull. 
28, p. 123-229.) 

Venus period in the picture writings 
of the Borgian Codex group. (U.S. 
bureau of American ethnology, bull. 


28, p. 353-391.) 


The North Americans of antiquity. 


New York. 


Dictionnaire de la langue nahuatl 
ou mexicaine. Paris. 


Pre-Columbian representations of the 
elephant in America. (Nature, vol. 
96, P. 340, 341, 425, 593-595.) 

The origin of the pre-Columbian 
civilization of America. (Science, 
new ser:, vol. xliv, p. 190-195, vol. 
xlv, p. 241-246.) 


Soro-Mayor, J. A. 


1914. 
SPINDEN, H. J. 
1910. 


1912. 


1913. 


(See G. B. Gordon, 1914.) 


Table showing the chronological 
sequence of the principal monu- 
ments of Copan, Honduras. (Amer- 
ican museum of natural history.) 
The chronological sequence of the 
principal monuments of Copan (Hon- 
duras). (Proc., International congress 
of Americanists, 17th sess., Mexico, 
1910. Resefia de la segunda ses- 
sion, p. 357-363.) 

A study of Maya art. (Harvard 
univ., Peabody museum memoirs, 
vol. vi.) Cambridge. 





SPINDEN, H. J. 
I9IS. 


1916. 


1916, a. 


1917. 


1917, a. 


1917, b. 


1917, Cc. 


Sourer, E. G. 


1855. 


1858. 


1860. 


1865. 


1869. 


1883. 


Notes on the archzology of Salvador 
(American anthropologist, new ser., 
vol. 17, p. 446-487.) 

Pre-Columbian representations of the 
elephant in America. (Nature, vol. 
96, p. 592-593.) (Criticism of 
G. E. Smith, 1915-1916.) 
Portraiture in Central American art. 
(Holmes anniversary volume, p. 434- 
450. Washington.) 

Ancient civilizations of Mexico and 
Central America. New York. 
(American museum of natural his- 
tory, handbook series, no. 3.) 

The invention and spread of agricul- 
turein America. (American museum 
of natural history journal, vol xvii, p. 
181-188.) 

The origin and distribution of agri- 
culture in America. (Proc., Interna- 
tional congress of Americanists, 19th 
sess., p. 269-276, 1915.) Washington. 
Recent progress in the study of Maya 
art. (Proc, International congress 
of Americanists, 19th sess., p. 165- 
177, 1915.) Washington. 


Notes on Central America; particu- 
larly the states of Honduras and San 
Salvador. New York. 

The states of Central America; their 
geography, topography, climate, pop 
ulation, resources, productions, etc., 
comprising chapters on Honduras, 
San Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa 
Rica, Guatemala, Belize, the Bay 
Islands, the Mosquito shore, and 
Honduras interoceanic railway. New 
York. 

Collection of rare and original docu- 
ments and relations, concerning the 
discovery and conquest of America. 
Chiefly from the Spanish archives. 
No. 1. Carta dirijida al Rey de 
Espana, por el Licenciado Dr. Don 
Diego Garcia de Palacio... Ano 
1576. Being a description of the 
ancient provinces of Guazacapan, 
Izalco, Cuscatlan, and Chiquimula, 
in the audiencia of Guatemala: with 
an account of the languages, customs, 
and religion of their aboriginal 
inhabitants, and a description of the 
ruins of Copan. New York. 

Die Staaten von Central America, 
insbesondere Honduras, San Salva- 
dor, und die Moskitokiiste. In 
deutscher Bearbeitung hrsg. von 
Karl Andrée. Neue Ausg. Leipzig. 
(German ed. of E. G. Squier, 1858.) 
Tongues from tombs; or the stories 
that graves tell. No. 5. Central 
America. (Frank Leslie’s illustrated 
newspaper, June 26, 1869, p. 236.) 
Ancient laborers and princes of 
Grand Chimu and New Granada. 
(Frank Leslie’s Magazine, vol. xv, 
no. 4, p. 468-480. April 1883.) 





Straus, W. 
1919. 


STEPHENS, J. L. 
1841. 


1843. 


Srott, O. 
1884. 


1888-1896. 


STREBEL, H. 
1884. 


1885-1889. 


1904. 


Swanton, J. R. 
IQII. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Some data about the pre-Hispanic 
and the now living Huastec Indians. 
(Mexico antiguo, tom. i, no. 3, p. 


49-65.) 


Incidents of travel in Central Ameri- 
ca, Chiapas, and Yucatan. 2 vols. 
New York. 

Incidents of travel in Yucatan. 2 vols. 
New York. 

Zur der 
Guatemala. 
Maya-Sprachen der Pokom-Gruppe. 
2 pts. Vienna, 1886, and Leipzig, 
1896. 


Ethnographie Republik 


Ziirich. 


Die Ruinen von Cempoallanim Staate 
Veracruz (Mexico). Mitteilungen 
iiber die Totonaken der Jetztzeit. 
(Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein von 
Hamburg-Altona, Abhandlungen, 
Bd. vin, Abt. 1.) 

Alt-Mexico. (Archaologische 
trage zur Kulturgeschichte 
Bewohner, 2 vols.) Hamburg. 
Uber Ornamente auf Thongefassen 
aus Alt-Mexico. Hamburg. 


Bei- 


seiner 


(See Thomas, C. 1911.) 


Tapia ZENTANO, C. 


1767. 


Noticia de la lengua Huasteca. 


Mexico. 


TERNAUX-COMPANS. 


1838. 


1840. 


Tuomas, C. 
1882. 


1888. 


1893. 


1894. 


Itinéraire du voyage de la flotte du 
roi catholique a l’Ile de Yucatan 
dans l’Inde. Fait en l’an 1518, sous 
les ordres du capitaine général Juan 
de Grijalva, rédigé et dédié a S. A. 
(1), par le chapelain en chef (2) de 
ladite flotte. (Recueil de piéces re- 
latives a la conquéte de Mexique. 
Paris. p. I-47.) 

Description de la province de Guaté- 
mala, envoyée au roi d’Espagne en 
1576. Traduit sur le manuscrit 
inédit que se trouve dans la biblio- 
theque de M. Ternaux-Compans. 
(Recueil de documents et mémoires 
originaux sur l’histoire espagnoles 
dans l’Amérique, p. 5-45.) Paris. 


A study of the manuscript Troano. 
(U. S. department of interior, con- 
tributions to North American ethnol- 
ogy, vol. v.) 

Aids to the study of the Maya 
codices. (U.S. bureau of American 
ethnology, 6th annual report, 1884- 
“Bs, P.259-371-) 

Are the Maya hieroglyphs phonetic? 
(American anthropologist, vol. vi, 
p. 241-270.) 

The Maya year. (U. S. bureau of 
American ethnology, bull. 18.) 
Washington. 








Tuomas, C. 
1894, a. 


1897. 


1898. 


1899. 


1900. 


1904. 


IQIl. 


Tozzer, A. M. 
1907. 


1907, a. 


IQIl. 


1913. 


1916, 


627 


Report on the mound explorations 
of the Bureau of ethnology. (U. S. 
bureau of American ethnology, 12th 
annual report, 1890-’91, p. 3-742.) 
Day symbols of the Maya year. 
(U. S. bureau of American ethnol- 
ogy, 16th annual report, 1894-95, 
p. 199-265.) 

Researches in the Uloa Valley, Hon- 
duras, and caverns of Copan, Hon- 
duras... By George Byron Gor- 
don. (A review.) (American 
archeologist, vol. 2, p. 309-310.) 
Maudslay’s archzological work in 
Central America. (American anthro- 
pologist, new ser., vol. 1, p. 552-561.) 
Mayan calendar systems. (U. S, 
bureau of American ethnology, 19th 
annual report, 1897-’98, pt. 2, p. 
693-819.) 

Mayan calendar systems. 11. (U. S. 
bureau of American ethnology, 22d 
annual report, I900~oI, pt. I, p. 
197-305.) 

Indian languages of Mexico and 
Central America and their geographi- 
cal distribution, by Cyrus Thomas, 
assisted by John R. Swanton. 
(U.S. bureau of American ethnology, 
bull. 44.) Washington. 


Ernst Forstemann. (American an- 
thropologist, new ser., vol. 9, p. 
153-159.) 

A comparative study of the Mayas 
and the Lacandones. New York. 
Prehistoric ruins of Tikal, Guate- 
mala. (Harvard univ., Peabody 
museum memoirs, vol. v, no. 2, p. 
93-135.) 

A preliminary study of the pre- 
historic ruins of Nakum, Guate- 
mala. A report of the Peabody 
museum expedition. 1909-1910. 
(Harvard univ., Peabody museum 
memoirs, vol. v, no. 3, p.137-197.) 
Pre-Columbian representations of the 
elephant in America. (Nature, vol. 
96, p. 592.) (Criticism of G. E. 
Smith. 1915-1916.) 


Tozzer, A. M., and G. M. ALLEN. 


1910. 


VALENTINI, P. J. 
1879. 


1880. 


The animal figures in the Maya 
codices. (Harvard univ., Peabody 
museum papers, vol. iv, no. 3, p. 
273-372.) 

lf 

The katunes of Maya history. 
Translated from the German, by 
Stephen Salisbury, Jr. (Proc. Amer- 
ican antiquarian society. Oct. 21, 
1879, no. 74, p- 71-117.) 

The Landa alphabet; a Spanish 
fabrication. (Proc. American anti- 
quarian society, April 28, 1880, no. 


78; D. 59-91.) 


628 


" re! 2 ae y : 
4 1 a) = ad 
7 3 ms) . 
ae 


VILLAGUTIERRE Soto-Mayor, J. DE. 


170%; 


, ‘ aa 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. y 
Wats, H. C. , 
Historia de la conquista de la pro- 1897. Copan: a city of the dead. (Harper's 


vincia de el Itza, reduccién, y pro- 
gressos de la de el Lancandon, y otras 
naciones de Indios barbaros, de la me- 
diacion de el reyno de Guatimala, a 
las provincias de Yucatan, en la 
America septentrional. Primera parte 
Escriuela Don Juan de Villagutierre 
Soto-Mayor. Madrid. 


WALCKENAER, BARON, and others. 


1836. 


Rapport sur le concours relatif a 
la géographie et aux antiquités de 
Amérique centrale, par une com- 
mission composée de MM. Le 
Baron Walckenaer, de Larenau- 
diére, et Jomard, rapporteur. (Bul- 
letin de la société de géographie, 
deuxiéme série, tom. v, p. 253-291. 
Same as Galindo, 1836.) 















weekly, vol. xli, no. 2124, Sept. 4, 
1897, p. 879-883.) 
Wituiams, M. W. 

1916. Anglo-American isthmian diplomacy, 
1815-1915. (Prize essays of ASC 
ican historical association, 1914.) _ 

Work on Copan’s Ruins. 
(New York Sun, July 1892.) 


XIMENEZ, F. 
1857. Las historias del origen de los Indios 

de esta provincia de Guatemala, 

_traducidas de la lengua Quiché 

Castellano. . . por el R. P. Fr 

cisco Ximénez. . . publicado 

la primera vez, y aumentado ¢ 


una introduccién y anotaciones por 
el Dr. C. Scherzer. Viena. 


— 


INDEX 


Abandonment, climatic change suggested as cause of, 448 
Cook’s hypothesis, 452 
Earthquake hypothesis rejected, 443 
Huntington’s hypothesis, 448 
Latest cities to be affected, 444 
Of cities, progressive, 434 
Of Copan, period of, 23 
Of most Old Empire cities (prior to Cycle 10), 430 
Of region, gradual only, 442 
Achi, defined, 611 
Acropolis, growth by accretion, 7, 11 
Date of, 9 
Height of, 425 
Rapidity of completion, 426 
Vertical cross-section, 211 
View from, II 
Adams, Percy, 27 
Addition and multiplication, different positions of numeral 
modifier in each, 312 
Agouti, 4 
Agricultural collapse most probable cause of end of Old 
Empire civilization, 462 
Agriculture, Cook on, 454 
Debilitation of soil from successive burnings, 454 
Development in archaic period, 410 
Factor in development of civilization, 414 
Maya method of, 453 
Aguacate, 3 
Aguas Calientes, 333, 433, 438, 441, 459 
Stela 1, 135, 572, 585, 589 
Aguilar, Garcia de, 544 
Aguilar, Gerénimo de, 476 
Aguilar, Sanchez de, quoted, 42 
Ahau-sign, as infix to Imix, 230 
Inverted, used as glyph for kin or day, 589 
Occurs 104 times out of 158 day-signs at Copan, 589 
Unusual element in, 380. 
Ahpulha, meaning of word, 509. 
Napot Xiu (see Xiu, Napot) 
Ah-tz’un, meaning of, 479, 509 
Ahuitzotl, death of, 37 
Ah-ziyah, meaning of, 479 
Akbal, not found as day-sign at Copan, 589 
One of year-bearers, in New Empire and Codices, 
516, 518 
Alford, 8 


Allen, 8 
Alphabet, general for all Mayance tongues, 611 


Altar de Sacrificios, 391, 433, 43 441, 459 
Abandonment of, 456 
Forms one site with El Pabellon, 571 
Stela 4, 571, 583 
Stela 5, 583 
Stela 7, 571, 584 
Altar types, chronological sequence of, 395 
Altars, associated, at times with hotun-markers, 214 
Drum-shaped, 110 
Of Early Period, description of, 395 
Subordinate to stele, 127 
Truncated cone, 377 
Amalin, Pedro, 17 








Analtehes, Maya codices, 42, 43 
Ancona, History of Yucatan, 526 
Annals of Quauhtitlan, 42 
Anniversary of 6 Caban 10 Mol, 336 
Anona, 3 
Ant-eater, 4 
Apay language, 605, 606 
Archaic culture, 422 
Earlier origin of, 422 
Vaster extension of, 422 
Archaic horizon, in Middle America, 409 
Archaic stelz, characteristics of altars of, 62 
Anthropomorphic figures, 422 
Classification of, 125 
Sculptures under Altars X and Y, 208 
Archaisms, at Tikal, 54, 76 
At Uaxactun, on Leyden Plate, on Tuxtla Statuette, 76 
Architectural achievement, zenith of, 315 
Arnold, quoted, 224 
Artistic considerations, coercive influence of, 170 
In glyph cutting, 265 
Astronomical elements (in Stel 10 and 12), 133, 134, 143 
Data, probably recorded here, 134 
Astronomical phenomena, 33, 465 
Athens of the New World, 431 
Atlatl, Nahuatl weapon, 574 
Aubin Codex (1576), 38, 41 
Autochthonous origin of civilizaticn doubtful, 406 
Aztec calendar, 36 
Codices, 36, et seq. 
Glyphs, decipherment of, 41 
Place names, 36 
Time-count grafted on Maya count, 479, 514 
Babylonian lunar calendar, parallel with Maya Supple- 
mentary series, 554 
Bacalar or Bakhalal, 457, 502 
Brinton on etymology, 457 
Balam Quiché, present fixed Quiché history begins with, 
about 12th century, 614 
United Chiquimula to Utatlan, €05 
Ball Court a purely Nahuan institution, 514 
Only two in Yucatan, 514 
Bancroft, H. H., references to Copan, 21 
Baraona, Sancho de, 16 
Baskets, 4 
Bat glyph, 45 
Beans, 3 
Benque Viejo, 433, 438, 441, 444) 458 
Abandonment of, 457 
Stela 1, 278, 528, 572, 586 
Berendt, Chol word: list, 610 
Copies Stephens’s erroneous Chorti word-list, 607 
Beverages, 3 
Bezerra, Bartolomé, 16 
Biologia Centrali-Americana, publication of, 22 
Birds, 5 
Bissextile shift in Maya New Year, 486 
Bogran, 24 
Bonilla, Policarpo, on Galindo, 603 
Borbonicus Codex, 559 
Boturini Codex, 41 


629 


630 INDEX. 


Bowditch, Charles P., bibliography, 32 
Correlation of chronology, 529 
Error noted, 342 
Lords of the Night, 559 
Method of notation, superseded those of Goodman, 
Forstermann, and Seler, 49 
Numeration, Calendar Systems, and Astronomical 
Knowledge of the Mayas, 32 
Periodicity of monuments, 565 
Quoted, 139, 231 
Work of, 24 
Brasseur de Bourbourg, on Chorti language, and Chiqui- 
mula kingdom, 607 
Chronology, 525 
Visits to Copan, 21 
Brinton, D. G., bibliography, 32 
Contributions to Middle American archeology, 32 
Doubling of katuns, 492 
Error of, corrected, 477 
“Father of Maya history,’ 32 
Katun-wheel in Cogolludo, 481 
Prevision, 35 
Quoted, 33, 35, 404 
Caban and Ik, at Quirigua second in importance only to 
Ahau, 516 
Only day-signs in variable element in Initial Series, 516 
Probably Old Empire year-bearers, 516, 518 
Caban series of year-bearers, in Old Empire, 516, 518 
Cabildo, museum in, at Copan, 106, 117 
Cacao, 3 
Cachapa, 147 
Cache under Stela 1, 424 
Under Stela 3, 155 
Under Stela 7, 105 
Under Stela C, 346 
Under Stela I, 177 i 
Under Stela M, 278 
Caches in foundation chambers at other sites, 278 
Cakchiquel Annals, 461 
‘ Calabash, 3 
Calculations of Maya dates, means for, 75 
Calendar and chronology, probable swift development of, 


407 
Calendar-Round date, 294 
Dating, uncertainty of, 236 
Camargo, Diego, 545 
Camotan, founded by Chorti emigrants from Copan, 603 
Cancuen, 433, 438, 441, 459, 520 
Altar 2, 572,.536 
Stela 2, 156, 572, 585, 589 
Capital at Copan shifted from Group 9 to Main Structure 
in Middle Period, 429 
Cardenas, Diego de, on number of natives in Cholti region, 
608 
Cardona, Antonio de, 546 
Carpenter, A. W., 27 
Carrillo y Ancona, Bishop, 526 
Carving, excellence of, on Stela P, 116 
Catherwood, drawings, 20 
Accuracy of, 226, 352 
Cauac-sign, 108 
Cauac, winged, as tun-sign, 153, 163, 380, 566 
At Chinikiha, 582 
Used as tun-sign in New Empire, 393 
Cayo, El, 220 
Ceh, forms for, 66, 89 
Center of population shifting, 129 
Center, Mr., visit to Copan, 21 





Ceramic finds in foundation chambers, 278 
Ceremonial importance of last day of time periods, 397 
Chachalaca, 5 
Chac Mool, 520 
Chamelicon Valley, 6, 431 
Chaves, Hernando de 17, 544, et seq. 
Chay, obsidian lances, 545 
Chel New Year, according to Goodman, 491, 498 
Chels move to Tikoch, 487 
Chen, forms for, 66 
Chiapanec, linguistic island, of Nicaraguan origin, 615 
Chichen Itza, 34, 391, 433, 441, 458, 567 
Discovery of, 498 
Earliest hotun-marker in New Empire, 573 
Early occupation, 435 
High Priest’s Grave, 511, 512, 580 
Occupations of, 502 
Structure near casa principal, 512 
Temple of Initial Series, 393, 512, 572, 586 
Temple of two lintels, 358, 512, 573, 580 
Temple at Ula, 512 
Chichen Itza Initial Series lintel, 520, 527, 531 
Lintel, Old Empire, 458 
Re-used during Nahua period, 511 
Same date on Old Empire lintel as on Stela 2 at Quen 
Santo, 459 
Chichimec, History, 42 
Chicomucelteca, 405 
Chicozapote, 220, 441 
Chilan Balam books, 578 
Chile, 3 
Chinikiha, 44 
Altar date, 582 
Chiquimula, 542 
Chiquimula de la Sierra, conquest of, 16 
Cholti, linguistic affiliations, 610, 611 
And Chorti one tongue, 605, 610 
Meaning of word, 610 
Territory, extent, 609, 610 
Vocabulary, compared with Maya and Quiché-Pokom, 
611 
Chorti language, 595 
Not one of Pokom language group, 605 
Vocabulary, earliest known, 606 
Word-list in Galindo manuscript, 601 
Christianity, official introduction of, in Yucatan, 489 
Chronological sequence of altar types, 395 
Of monumental types, 394, 395 
Chronological systems, two in use at time of conquest, 512 
Chronology, Maya, correlation with Christian dates, 465 
Chronology of Copan, Spinden on, 53 
Chumayel manuscript, 473, 578 
Extract, translated, 479 
Itza records in, 474 
Quoted. 43, 458, 474, 485, 576 
Chunvis, 441 
Civilization, Maya, autochthonous origin of, doubtful, 406 
Extension of, 403 
Influence on Zapotec, Nahua, ete., 404 
Origin of, 402 
Transfer of after Old Empire to Yucatan, 614 
Climate, 2 
Climatic change suggested as cause of abandonment, 448 
Climatic conditions, effect on erection of stela, according 
to Huntington, 452 
Hilderbrandsson on, 449 
Penck on, 450 
Climatic chart, Huntington quoted in explanation, 450 


Pood 


INDEX. 


Cloisonné, Mexican, wide distribution of, 34 
Cocom, 445 
Driven to Tibulon and Sotuta, 487 
New Year, according to Goodman, 491, 498 
Cocom, Juan, one of Landa’s informants, 29 
Codices, month coefficients in, 513 (see under Dresden, 
Peresianus, and Tro-Cortesianus) 
Coefficients, unusual forms of: 
4, coefhcient, unusual form of, 162 
10, fleshless lower jaw used as zero in three places at 
Copan, 137 
11, glyph for, 166 
15, bar with death’s head for, 166 
15, composite numeral, possible reason for, 169 
Cogolludo, History of Yucatan, 472 
Katun wheel in, 472 
On erection of stele, 577 
Quoted, 43, 480, 481 
Cojolito, 5 
Colonies of Copan, 431 
Quirigua, 428 
Colonization of Yucatan, 459 
Period of New Empire, 458 
Colors on monuments, 132 (see also Red paint) 
Comet, over Mexico in 1489, in Codices, 40 
Conquest of Copan, told by Fuentes y Guzman, 17 
Told by Juarros, 17 
Constellation bands, 152 
Conventionalization in Maya glyphs, 232, 259 
Cook’s studies in agricultural methods, quoted, 452, 455 
Copal, incense, 4, 365 
Copan: Colonies of, 431 (also see Los Higos, Paraiso, Rio 
Amarillo, Santa Rita, Quirigua) 
Important dates at, 516, 579 (see also 6 Caban 10 Mol) 
Location, I 
Name, different etymologies suggested, 15 
Outlying groups, 13 
Preeminence of, 431 
Site clearing, 58 
Site ot, 6 
Supplementary Series at, 551 
Valley, intensive occupation of, 14, 25 
Copan, Cabildo, museum in, 106, 117 
Copan Calel, 17, 544 
Copan, divisions of site: 
Court of Hieroglyphic Stairway, 9 
Eastern Court, 10 
Mentioned by Galindo, 596 
Great Plaza, 129 
Date; 12, %775,. 220; 425 
Date determined by Stela I, 427 
Hiatus in monuments during its construction, 130 
Removals from Group 9 to, 419 
Group 9: 
Favorable character of location, 417 
First center of intensive occupation, 122 
Most thoroughly excavated group at Copan, 417 
Mound of Stela 7, earliest center of intensive 
occupation at, 106 
Oldest settlement in valley, 417 
Removals from, to Great Plaza, 419 
Sketch map of, 124 
Group 13, plan of, 144 
Main Structure, chief center from Middle Period, 129 
Earliest monument at, 424 
General description, 7, 8 
Most important center after 9.11.0.0.0, 163 
Mound 9 probably oldest building left at Main 
Structure, 425 





631 


Copan, division of site—Continued. 
Middle Court, 12 
Western Court, date of, 115 
Copan Early Period (see also Earliest, etc.): 
Altars, description of, 127 
Inscriptions, 53 
Monuments, provenance and periodicity, 121 
None in situ, 122 
Re-used, list of, 418 
Stele and altars, tentative correlation of, 128 
Stelz, list of dates, 419, 420 
Copan, Middle Period: 
Expansion in, 437 
History summarized, 210 
Inscriptions of, 129 
Last monument of, 427 
Stelz, classified, 212 
All date from hotun-endings, 214 
All show Initial Series, 212 
Copan, Hieroglyphic Stairway, 51, 243, 244, 257, 263 
Classification of dates, 266 
Discussion, 237 
Hiatus in monuments during its construction, 130 
Landslide at, 268 
Summary of chronology, 272 
Copan monuments: 
Altar of Stela 1, 598 
Discussion, 174 
Altar A’, discussion, 68 
Its stela probably lost, 128 
Altars B’ and C’, discussion, 291 
Altar D’, discussion, 293 
Altar F’, discussion, 372 
Now in Peabody Museum, 373 
Altar G,, discussion, 366 
Altar Ge, discussion, 365 
Altar Gs, discussion, 325 
Altar G’, discussion, 374 
Altar H’, 566, 597 
Altars H’ and I’ removed at early date, 194 
Discussion, 186 
Inscription continued on Altar I’, 189 
Altar I’, 597 
Discussion, 189 (see Altar H’) 
Altar J’, discussion, 56 
Altar K, discussion, 185 
Altar K’, discussion, 56 
Altar L, discussion, 289 
Altar L’, discussion, 57 
Altar M’, discussion, 58 
Altar N’, discussion, 375 
Altar O’, discussion, 370 
Altar P’, discussion, 63 
Altar Q, 597, 
Discussion, 326 
Altar Q’, discussion, 61 
Altar R, discussion, 298 
Altar S, closely connected with Stelaz A and B, 23c 
Discussion, 230 
Suggested translation for, 230 
Altar T, 344 
Discussion, 334 
Altar T’, discussion, 375 
Altar U, 516 
Discussion, 299 
Petrographic description, 463 
Altar U’, discussion, 376 
Altar V, discussion, 296 
Altar W, discussion, 364 


632 


Copan monuments—Continued. 


Altar W’, discussion, 330 
Altar X, archaic sculpture beneath, 208 
Discussion, 63 
Altars X and Y, and Stele 16 and 17, closely related, 
65, 91 
Altars X, Y, and A’, similarity of, 128 
Altar Y, archaic sculpture beneath, 208, 421 (see 
Altar X) 
Discussion, 66 
Altar Z, discussion, 324 
East Altar of Stela 5, 164, 168, 565 
Discussion, 163 
Fragments V’, discussion, 117 
Fragment FE’, discussion, 338 
Fragment S’, discussion, 120 
Fragment X’, discussion, 368 
Fragment Y’, discussion, 209 
Fragment Z’, discussion, 378 
‘Hieroglyphic Stairway of Mound 26: 
Date 1, 241; Date 2, 243; Date 3, 244; Date 
» B45; 
Date_s, 245; Date 6, 247; Date 7.247: 
Date 8, 247; Date 9, 247; Date 10, 249; 
Date ri, 251; Date 12, 252; Date £3, 259: 
Date 14,°253; Date 35, 264; Date 16, -2¢¢° 
Date 17, 255; Date 18, 256; Date 19, 256; 
Date 20, 256; Date 21, 256; Date 22, 257; 
Date 23, 257; Date.24, 258; Date 25, 261; 
Date 26, 262; Date 27, 264; Date 28, 264; 
Date 23, probably historical event, 258 
Reappears at Quirigua 258 
Date 24, probably earliest of late group, 269 
Probable position_of, at top of stairway, 269 
Hier. Steps, south side Mound 2, discussion, 233 
Stela 1, 565 
Altar of, 174 
Discussion, 161 
Stela 2, 559 
Discussion, 136 
Resemblances to Stela 12, 140 
Stela 3, 155, 559 
Discussion, 155 
Petrographic description, 463 
Stela 4, discussion, 355 
Stela 5, discussion, 204 
East Altar of, 163 
Relation of West Altar of, to Stela 1, 181 
West Altar of, 171 
Stela 6, 566 
Discussion, 183 
Stela 7, 79, 567 
Cross-section of mound of, 104 
Excavation of mound of, 104 
General discussion, 102 
Mound of, first religious center at Copan, 418 
Plan of mound of, 103 
Stela 8, discussion, 340 
Stela 9, 568 
Comparison with Stela 15, 94 
Discussion, 93 
Stela 10, discussion, 141 
Stela 11, discussion, 369 
Stela 12, 559 
Discussion, 132 
Resemblances to Stela 2, 140 
Stela 13, 559 
Discussion, 152 


INDEX. 








Copan Monuments—Continued. 


Stela 15 566, 568 
Comparison with Stela 9, 94 
Discussion 86 
Stela 16, 567 
Discussion, 84 
Stylistic study, 92 
Stela 17, discussion, 89 
Stele 16 and 17 and Altars X and Y closely 
related, 65, 91 
Stela 18, discuss-on, 96 
Shows first human figure in front view, 60 
Stela 19, altars with, 145 
Discussion, 143 
Stela 20, 72, 74, 568 
Discussion, 72 
Oldest monument at Copan, 60, 77 
Stela 21, discussion, 95 
Stela 22, discussion, 68 
Stela 23, discussion, 146 
Stela 24, 80, 567, 568 
Discussion, 78 
Stela 25, discussion, 69 
Stela A, 47, 566, 598 
Closely connected with Stela B and Altar S, 230 
Discussion, 221 
Stela B, 598 
Closely connected with Stela A and Altar S, 230 
Discussion, 223 
Stela C, discussion, 345 
Stela D, 27, 598 
Discussion, 230 
Petrographic description, 463 
Stela E, discussion, 101 
Probably brought from Group 9, 107 
Stele E and I and their altars, analogies, 113 
Stela F, 566, 598 
Discussion, 353 
Stela H, 598 
Discussion, 351 
Stela I, 565 
Discussion, 177 
Relationship to West Altar of Stela 5, 181 
Stela J, 244 
Discussion, 194 
Stela M, 559, 560 
Cruciform chamber under, 278 
Discussion, 277 
Stela N, 559, 560, 561, 597 
Discussion, 279, 289 
Stela P, 566, 597 
Discussion, 114 
Excellence of carving, 116 
Temple 11, 597 
Discussion, 307 
Temple 18, discussion, 371 
Temple 214, discussion, 318 
Possibly Temple of Venus, 319 
Temple 22, 10 
Beauty of, 317 
Discussion, 316° 
Head from, at Peabody Museum, 317 
Temple 26, discussion, 274 


Copan, similar monuments to, at adjacent sites: 


Los Higos, Stela 1, 384 (see Los Higos) 
Rio Amarillo, Altars 1 and 2, 382 (see Rio Amarillo) 


Copan, peccary skull from Tomb 1, 379 


Discussion, 379 
Now in Peabody Museum, 379 





INDEX. 


Copan, Reviewing-stand in Western Court, 579 
Discussion, 321 
Copan, Shrine R’, discussion, 377 
Copan, Summary of monuments relating to 6 Caban 
10 Mol, 343 (see also 579) 
Summary of Stelz 4, C, F, and H, 358 
Copper bells, 34 
Cérdoba, Hernando de, 490 
Cornette, visit to Copan, 21 
Cornice, hieroglyphic, cases of, 276 
At Quirigua, 387 
Correlation of chronologies, probably assured within 49- 
day range, 505 
Basic evidence for, 466 
Historical bases for, 475 
Proposition by Morley, 467 
Sources for, 467 
Correlation schools, American, 529, et seq. 
French, 525 
German, 526 
Guatemalan, 525 
Cortés, Hernando, 549 
In Yucatan, 490 
Cotton, 3 
Criteria of archaism, 77 
Crops, 3 
Cruciform underground chambers, 177 
Under Mound 9, 121 
Under Stela 1, 161, 163 
Under Stela 3, 155 
Under Stela 7, 105 
Under Stela I, 177 
Under Stela M, 278 
Under Stela C, 346 
Other similar locations, 105 
Cultural connection with Old World unsupported, 224 
Cultural gap greater in Guatemalan history than in Yuca- 
tecan, 614 
Culture intrusions in other localities, 34 
Culture levels, 8 
Curassow, 5 
Current time-system grafted on elapsed time-system, 479, 
514 
Curve of civilization at Copan, 432 
Cutilca Cave, 600 
Cycle renewal in codices, 41 
Cycle 10, record of, 198 
No contemporaneous monument found recording, 438 
Cycle 11 dates, 250 
Cycle-sign, 83 
Daly, César, visit to Copan, 21 
Dardén, Juan Pérez, 16 
Date, anachronism of 13 Ahau 8 Xu! developed by the 
Oxkutzcab chronicle, 510 
Most important in Great Period, 429 
Date glyphs, percentage of, in inscriptions, 399 
Date, latest in southwestern Maya field, 438 
Date (see also Important dates) 
Date of dedication of monuments, necessarily selected in 
advance, 398 
Date, probable position of 13 Ahau 8 Kankin in Long 
Count, 510, 518 
Date, 6 Caban 10 Mol, a historical date, most important 
at Copan, 297 
Anniversary of, 336 
Date, starting-point of Maya chronological system (4 Ahau 
8 Cumhu) occurrence of, on monuments, 150 
Dates, decimal notation for Christian, 477 
Important group of, 344 








633 


Dates of Copan monuments, table, 587, et seq. 
Calculation of, 75 
Contemporaneous on monuments, 26, 27 
Decipherment of, 46 
In lower half of Hieroglyphic Stairway. probably 
relate to historical events of Early Period, 268 
Latest on one monument, is usually the contemporane- 
ous, 227 
Probable percentage of error in decipherment of, 415 
Dates, “prophetic,” 27, 197, 198, 333, 342 
Dating system, accuracy of, 2 
Day, basic unit of time count, 465 
Count (tonalamatl), inviolability of, 522 
Positions shifted after 1200 A. D., 478 
Day-sign, 83 
Day-signs at Copan, list of all, 589, et seq. 
Death god, 558 
Death’s-head characteristics in numerals, 172 
Glyph, 8r 
Decipherment, of Aztec glyphs, 41 
Maya date, 46 
Maya hieroglyphic writing, 28 
Means for, 75 
Probable percentage of error in, 415 
Decipherment, Maudslay’s contribution, 31 
Phonetic school, 30 
Decorated element, to avoid distortion, 203 
Deer, 4 
Deer hunts in Codex Tro-Cortesianus, 4 
Deities, presiding over periods, 559 
Delgado, Joseph, among Choles, 609 
Destruction of monuments and buildings due to tropical 
vegetation, 442 
Diaz, Padre Juan, with Grijalva, 519 
Different plaza levels in Acropolis at Copan, 425 
Diocese of Yucatan, 29 
Dolores, location of, 609 
Doves, 5 
Drawings, scale of, 524 
Difficulties in, 52 
Dresden Codex, 589 
Bowditch on contemporaneous date of, 519 
Férstemann on contemporaneous date of, 519 
List of lunar and solar eclipses, 556, 557 
Lunar and eclipse calculations, 555, 557, 558, 561, 563 
Meinshausen on, 556 
Moon-glyph in, 554 
Serpent numbers, 281 
Venus-solar periods in, 35, 150, 182, 527 
Year-bearers, 516, 517 
Dress, 5 
Drum-shaped altars, 110 
Earliest center of intensive occupation, 106 
At group 9, 122 
Earliest center of population, 123, 125 
Earliest certain contemporaneous texts in Old Empire, 411 
Earliest deciphered date at Copan, 78 
Earliest entry in Maya chronicles (9.0.0.0.0), 501 
Earliest Great Period cities, 438 
Earliest human form in front view, 97 
Earliest monuments at Copan, 55 
Stela 20, 77 
At Main Structure, 424 
Earliest stela at Copan, 60 
Early and late groups of dates on Hieroglyphic Stairway, 
stylistic difference between, 270 
Early Period at Copan (see Copan, Early Period) 


634 


Early Period, monuments, list of re-used, 418 
None in situ, 122 
Provenance and periodicity, 121 
Early Period stelz, altars, description of, 127 
Inscriptions, 53 
List of dates, 419, 420 
Stelz and altars, tentative correlation of, 128 
Early visits to Copan, Stephens, 2 
Earthquake hypothesis as cause of abandonment, rejected, 


443 
Earthquakes, in Aztec Codices, 39 
Eclipse phenomena in Supplementary Series, 401 
Eclipses, 35, 465 
In Aztec Codices, 39 
Egyptian cultural connection unsupported, 22 
Eisen, G., on Chorti language and on Copan natives, 607 
El Cayo, 220, 391, 433, 438, 441 
Stela 1, 572 
El Chicozapote, 220, 441 
El Encanto, 441 
El Mecco, 520 
El Pabellon, 391, 433, 436, 441 
Four monuments from, deciphered, 571 
Site same as Altar de Sacrificios, 571 
Stela 1, 571, 583 
Elapsed time concept, 282 
Elapsed time in Maya counting, 48, 64 
“Elephant-head” decoration, 28 ~ 
“Elephant-trunk” element, 22 
Elevation of Copan, 1 
Encinas, Fernando, 546 
Ending-sign (see Hotun and Lahuntun) 
Engraving of records practiced long before foundation of 
Copan, 416 
Environment at Copan, I 
Errors in inscriptions, 280 
In month-signs, very unusual, 332 
Espiritu Santo Bay, 520 
Esquipulas, surrender, 17 
Excavations, objects found, 25 
Exodus from Old Empire region, two-fold direction of, 457 
Expansion at end of Early Period, 419 
In Middle Period, 437 
Of civilization under Old Empire, 434, 435 
Extinction of Old Empire civilization, causes suggested, 442 
Eye pierced by arrow in katun-wheel figure, 483 
Eznab, resemblance of, to death’s head, 81 
Fall of Old Empire 442 
Famine in 1533-34, Landa and Juan Xiu on, 509 
Fauna, 4 
Feather head-dresses, 5 
Tassel decoration, 360 
Feathers of turkey, macaw, quetzal, toucan, and parrot, 5 
Ferraz, Lenguas Indigenas de Centro America, 610 
Fibers, 4 
Figures on two faces, monuments with, uncommon, 279 
Fire-sticks, distribution in ancient America, 41 
Flora at Copan, 1 
Flores, 433, 438, 441, 444, 458 
Abandonment of, 457 
Stela 1, 458, 528, 572, 586 
Stela 2, 458, 528, 572, 586 
Florida, La, 422 
Food staples, 3 
Food- supply, national crisis in Great Period, 456 
Probable effect on religious ceremonies of time, 456 
Forearms of human figures, position of, 141 
Forestation, 1 











INDEX. 


Forests, present not primeval, 455 
Botanical and zoological evidence for this, 455 
Cook, corroborated by Whitford, 456 
Forstemann, Ernst, 31, 78 
Life and bibliography, 30 
On correlation of chronology, 199 
On moon-glyph in Dresden Codex, 554 
Quoted, 527 
Work on decipherment, 30 
Fragments, inscribed, importance of preserving, 120 
Frog, relation to Uo, uinal, and moon-glyphs, 232 
Fruits, 3 
Fuensalida, Padre, visit to Tayasal, 472 
Fuente Albores, Juan Jossef de la, Chol vocabulary from 
Tila, 610 
Fuentes y Guzman, chapters on Copan, 543 
Digested copy by Mariano Padilla, 543 
Manuscript, 543 
Quoted, 15 
Full-figure glyphs, 231 
Function of monuments, probable, 396 
Galinde, Juan, a British subject born in Ireland, 603 
Discovery of his report on Copan, 593 
Drawings, 19 
Excavations and finds, 11 
Letters, 19 
Manuscript, 18 
Our treatment of the Indian, 594 
Quarries, 6 
Quoted, 132, 187 
Gallardo, Pablo, 548 
Gallatin, prints Stephens’s erroneous Chorti word-list, 607 
Gann, copies of wall paintings, at Tuluum, 519 
Garcia de Medina, Probanza, 488 
Garcia Pelaez, cites Isagoge on the Payaqui, 607 
Garnica, Diego Martinez de, 549 
Garrido, Bartolomé, 545 
Gates, William, collection, 18, 593, 594 
Maya post-conquest manuscripts In, 475 
On Maya passage, 530 
Quoted, 477, 482, 483 
Translation and notes, Oxkutzcab Chronicle (p. 66), 508 
Translation by, 479, 485 
Translation of Fuentes y Guzman, 543 
Geology of Copan, 1, 463 
Glyph, defined, 50 
Conventionalization, 259 
For lahuntun and katun, 201 
Value, 337 
Glyph-blocks, defined, 50 
Delineation, characteristics of earliest style, 393 
Earliest style most extensive at Tikal, 393 
Measurements of, as criterion, 117 
Glyphs, full-figure, 231 
Form variance in, 64 
Inversion of, 322 
Right to left reading of, 313 
Unusual order of, 156 
God A, and number to, 558 
God D, and number 4, 558 
God E and numbers 1 or 8, 558 
God K, and number 7, 558 
God N and number 5, 558 
Godman and Salvin, work on fauna and flora, 4 
Goldman, E. A., revision of fauna nomenclature, 4 
Goodman, J. T., work on decipherment, 30 
Correlation of chronology, quoted, 530 
Contradictions involved in his correlation, 531 
Date for Palenque, 530 





INDEX. 


Goodman, J. T.—Continued. 
Error corrected, 242 
Mistranslates Maya passage, 530 
On Itza, Chel, and Cocom New Year, 491, 498, 523 
On lahuntun-glyph, quoted, 566 
On Old Empire year-bearers, 516 
Quoted, 283 
Review of his work, 31 
Gordon, George B., 2 
Date, reading of, for Altar X, 65 
On inscriptions of Hieroglyphic Stairway, 241, et seq. 
On monument nomenclature, 537 
Quoted, 271 
Gorgas, W. C., on malaria, 446 
Gourd, 4 
Great Cycle, etc., 349, 351 
Length of, 281 
Great Cycle glyphs, 376 
Occurrences of, 281 
Great Cycle, previous, 250 
Great Cycle 19, 283 
Great-Great Cycle glyph, 346, 347 
Great-Great Cycle 11, 283 
Great-Great-Great Cycle 1, 283 
Great-Great-Great-Great Cycle 1, 283 
Great Period, earliest cities of, 438 
Inscriptions of, 219 (see also Copan, Great Period) 
Grijalva, Juan de, 490 
Expedition, 519 
Guacas, hidden treasures, 549 
Guatemala Highlands, settlement of by migration from 
the north, 459 
Guava, 3 
Guelva, Juan Sanchez de, 544 
Guthe, Carl, 551, 558 
On Supplementary Series, 563 
Hacienda Grande, 6, 14 
Plan of, 144 
Hacienda Miraflor, 422 
Archaic figures found at, 422 
Halach vinic, Maya term for ruler, 487 
Hardcastle, Mr., visit to Copan, 21 
Head facing to right on Stela 2, reason for, 140 
Head glyph, unusual position of, 167 
Held, John, jr., 28 
Hewett, E. L., 27 
Hiatus in monumental sequence, possible explanation there- 
for, 130 
Hieroglyphic Stairway, date, 24 
Its beauty of composition, 261 (see also Copan, 
Hieroglyphic Stairway) 
Hieroglyphic steps at other localities, 220 
Hieroglyphic writing, study of, 232 
Hilderbrandsson on climatic conditions, 449 
Historical bases for a chronological correlation, 475 
Data in inscriptions, 36 
In Aztec Codices, 36-40 
History in Maya manuscripts, 42, et eq. 
History of Copan, Early Period, Old Empire, 415 
Great Period, 429 
Middle Period, 423 
Holactun, Temple of Initial Series, 250, 358, 391, 393, 411, 
500, 512, 580 
Holmes, W. H., 27 
Study of tools, 5 
Hondurenismos, cited, 607 
Honradez, La (see La Honradez) 
Hotun, defined, 74 
Chronological unit in Old Empire for 250 years, 127 


635 


Hotun-ending, earliest known, 398 
Karlier of two, invariably contemporaneous date, 227 
Later of two, “Future time,” 227 
Later of two, invariably of unusual importance, 228 
Single, invariably contemporaneous date, 227 
Hotun-Glyph, 565 
First identified by writer, 566 
Widespread use of, 566 
Hotun, lahuntun, or katun endings, priority among, 421 
Hotun-markers, at Quirigua, 214 
At Tikal and Nakum possibly painted, 437 
At times associated Altars used as, 214 
Custom at different cities, detailed statement, 568 
Disuse of in later period, 364, 388 
Erection of, go, 111 
In Early Period, 126 
Missing, probable reason for, 216 
Possibly originated at Copan, 420 
Tabulated list of, 581 
Use continued through Middle Period, 213 
Hotun numeral coefficients, 75 
Hotun-sign, unique variant of, 162 
Howe, 573 
Huasteca, 402, et seq. 
A Maya linguistic island, 403 
No evidence of hieroglyphic writing among, 404 
Separation of, before development of civ lization, 405 
Huitzilipochtli, dedication of temple, in Aztec Codices, 39 
Human figure, range of period, 395 
Representation, 60 
Hunnac Ceel, victory over Itza, 574 
Hunter, Annie, drawings, 22 
Drawings by, corrected, 109, 115, 139, 142, 162, 302 
Huntington, Ellsworth, theory of climatic changes and 
rainfalls, 448 
Hypothesis, chief weakness of, 452 
Ichmul, stela 1, 580 
Ik and Caban, only day-signs, in variable element in Initial 
Series introducing-glyphs, 516 
At Quirigua second in importance only to Ahau, 516 
Old Empire year-bearers, 516, 518 
Imix not found as day-sign at Copan, 589 
As part of month-sign Mac, 589 
Important dates, other than Period Endings, 579, 582 
g.0.0.0.0. recorded at several places, including 
Copan, Palenque, Books of Chilan Balam, 
582 (see notes to App. vitl, 582, et seq ) 
G.14.13.4.17 most important date at Quirigua, 258, 
2735 274 
Possibly date of foundation of Quirigua, 272 
g.15.0.0.0 at various places, 584 
10.0.0.0.0, not found as contemporaneous date, 586 
g.16.12.5.17 most important date of Great Period at 
Copan, possible significance of, 429 
Its anniversary commemorated, 430 
6 Caban 10 Mol, at Copan, 516, 579 
12 Caban 5 Kayab at Quirigua, 516, 579 
6 Cimi 4 Tzec at Quirigua, 579 
4 Eb to Yax, 9 Manik O Kayab, 3 Cauac 2 Pop at 
Naranjo, 579 
2 Ik 10 Pax at Piedras Negras, 579 
6 Ix 12 Yaxkin at Yaxchilan, 579 
7 Men 18 Kankin at Piedras Negras, 579 
Incense, 4 
Inclusions in roc’ masses, 463 
In Altar Gi, 367 
In Altar U, 300 
Petrographic description of, 463 


636 


Inclusions in rock masses 463—Continued. 
In Stela 2, 140 
In Stela 3, 157 
Petrographic description of, 463 
In Stela D, 233 
Petrographic description of, 463 
Indians, Galindo on our treatment of, 594 
Initial Series, 34, 466 
In stele, 29 known at Copan, 111 
Name given by Maudslay, 31 
System perfected at time of Tuxtla Statuette, 411 
59 out of 178 known are at Copan, 391 
Initial Series found on all Early Period Stel, 126 
At Copan nearly always record katun, lahuntun, or 
hotun-endings, 70, 74 
Caban and I[k in introducing glyphs of, 516 
Contemporary date on early stelz, 399 
First discovery of in Yucatan, 500 
Found on all Middle Period Stela, 212 
Latest at chief sites, 392 
Latest known, 411 
List of known, at all sites, 391 
Method not used in latter part of Great Period at 
Copan, 307, 388 
None at Seibal, or Nakum, 393 
Only 3 known in New Empire, 393 
Stele with two, list of, 401 
Unique introducing glyph, 144 
Initial Series, terminal date, suppression of, 138, et seq. 
Inscribed lintels at other localities, 220 
Inscriptions, Goodman’s work on, 31 
At Copan, constitute 40 per cent of ali known, 391 
Of Early Period, 53 
Of Great Period, 219 
Of Middle Period, 129 
Inscriptions continuous on Altars H’ and I’, 189 
On architectural features, 229 
On stelz concluded on their associated altars, 182 
_ Interlacing glyph bands, 195 
Introducing glyph not at beginning, 356 
In second position, 199, 191 
Introducing glyphs without Initial Series, se confined to 
Copan, 347 
Inverted L-shaped glyph panels, 151 
Irregularity of glyph outline, best criterion of archaism, 77 
Isagoge histdrico, cited, 605, 607, 608 
Isla de Mugeres, 520 
Itza, 445 
Migrate south to Peten, 4&7, 614 
Retained Old Empire time-count, 523 
Itza chronology, its persistence, 473 
Count, different from Xiu, 512 
Records preserved, 473 
New Year, according to Goodman, 491, 498 
Itzamna, 558 
On Codex Peresianus, 575 
On Mayapan stela, 574 
Itsimte, 391, 433, 437, 441 
Abandonment of, 456 
Four monuments deciphered, two doubtfully, all are 
hotun-markers, 571 
Itsimte Monuments, Altar 1, 434, 571, 584 
Altar 2, 434, 571, 584 
Stela 1, 571, 584 
Stela 2, 571, 584 
Ix, not found as day-sign at Copan, 589 
Ixkun, 391, 433, 438, 441 





INDEX. 


Ixkun Monuments: 
Only one stela deciphered, not a hotun-marker, 571 
Stela 1, 559, 571, 585 
Stela 2, 571, 585 
Stela 5, 571, 585 
Jade, mentioned by Galindo, 596 
Objects of, below Stela 7, 105 
Jaguar, 5 
Jaguar-skin cloaks, at Palenque, on Chama vase, on Stela 
20 at Yaxchilan, 5 
Jalisco, objects from, at Chichen Itza, 34 
Jaw, fleshless lower, sign for zero, 159 
Jobitsina Cave, 600 
Jocotan, founded by people driven from Copan, 603 
Jocote, 3 
Joyce, quoted, 406, 443 
Correlation of chronology, quoted, 531 
Error in Chichen Itza date, 531 
Error in Tuluum date, 531 
Other errors, 532 
Juarros, History of Guatemala, 18 
On distribution of Chorti, 607 
Julian and Maya periods, similarity of, 48 
Julian period, analogy with, 465 
Kan series of year-bearers in Codex Tro-Cortesianus and 
Books of Chilan Balam, 517, 518 
Introduced after 1200 A. D., 520, 521 
Only series in use at time of Conquest, 518 
Katun, 566 
Katun anniversaries, 181, 336, 337 
At Quirigua, 181 
Katun-circuit, 483 
Katun dates, correlation, 495 
Katun-ending, earliest certain, 398 
Katun-ending records, 184 
Katun-endings only, found after 9.19.10.0.0., 580 
Katun, lahuntun, and hotun endings, importance of, 65 
Katun, lahuntun, and hotun monuments, review, 578 
Katun-sign, 83, 201 
Katun-stones, erection noted by Landa and Cogulludo, 577 
Katun-wheel in Cogolludo, 472 
Its explanation, 483 
Lists in Mani, Kaua, and Tizimin manuscripts, 482 
Seen by Stephens in 1841, 472 
Katun 11, commemorated by stele at six different Copan 
groups, 423 
Katun 13 Ahau 8 Kankin, 510, 518 
Katun 13 Ahau 8 Xul, 510 
Katuns and towns associated, 484 
Kaua manuscript, 482 
Kin-coefiicient, unusual, 178 
Kin-sign variant, 168 
Kukulcan, in Codex Peresianus, 575 
Labna, Palace, 358 
Lacandon, a dialect of Cholti in Early Period, 611 
Lacandon territory, 542 
La Florida, 422 
Laguna de Términos, 609 
La Honradez monuments, 391, 433, 438 
Stela 1, 585 
Stela 2, 434 
Stela 3, 434 
Stela 4, 571, 585 
Stela 5, 571, 585 
Stela 6, 434, 571, 584 
Stela 7, 59, 5595 571, 585 
Stela 8, 434 
Stela 9, 434 





INDEX. 


Lahuntun, or 3,600 day period, 566 
Glyph for, 61, 88, 116, 183, 201 
Lahuntun ceremoni_ s, 576 
Lahuntun-ending, earliest, 398 
Lahuntun glyphs at Copan, list of, 354 
At different sites, 566 
First identified by Goodman, 566 
Possible explanation of form, 567 
La Mar, 433, 438, 441 
Stela 1, 572, 585 
Stela 2, 572, 586 
Lamat, normal form, 64 
Unusual form of, 150 
Lamat, with Venus-sign on Altar K, 186 
Lamat and Venus-sign, 203, 237, 243, 244, 265 
Possible connections, 150 
Lamat and Venus year, 182 
Lambert, E., drawings, 22 
Lances of chay, obsidian, 545 
Landa, Diego de, History of Yucatan, 29, 42, 44, 222, 304, 
322, 576, 577 
Date of death, 491 
Hieroglyphic manuscripts and objects burned by, 44, 
468 
Trial, 29 
Landa “alphabet,” 29 
Landry, M. D., finds Stela S at Quirigua, 571 
Landslide at Hieroglyphic Stairway, 239 
Latest dates at Copan, 430 
Latest Initial Series known, 411 
Latest monument of Middle Period, 427 
La Tibulea, Cave of, 548 
Lehmann, Walter, correlation of chronology, 528, 529 
Quoted, 45 
Leén Pinelo, Relacién on Lacandon territory, 608 
Letras heridas, use of in different Mayance languages, 612 
Leyden plate, 84, 391, 393, 403, 411, 420, 516, 528, 567 
Description, 411 
Provenance of, 422 
Linguistic separation, probable course, 615 
Lintels, inscribed, 220 
Lizana, 42 
On settlement of Yucatan, 459 
Llano Grande, 14 
Local traditions, none at Copan, 542 
Loltun, Cave at, 438, 573, 580 (see also Mercer) 
Hunacab mouth, 572 
Long Count, defined, 64 
Correlation with Christian chronology, 499 
Lopez, Gonzalo, 545 
Lords of the Night, 559 
Bowditch on, 559 
Los Higos, 6, 381, 391, 4315 433, 438, 441, 567 
Discussion, 384 
Stela 1, 333, 435, 572, 585 
Loss of 205 day positions in Yucatan year, 523 
Possible reason therefor, 522 
Probably occurs in Xiu manuscript only, reason, 522 
Lothrop, S. K., 27 
Find of archaic figure, 422 
Lunar period in Supplementary Series, 401 
Mac, forms for, 135 
Unusual form for (?), 154 
Magania, Lucas, 544 
Maize, 3 
Maize god, 558 
Malaria, influence on development of civilization, 446 
Endemic in region, 446 
Maler, photographs of Chilan Balam manuscripts, 475 








637 


Mani, Lord of, visits Montejo, 480 
Mani manuscript, 436, 457, 469, 482 
Mani and Tizimin passages, errors in, 506 
Difficulties, 533 
Manuscripts, hieroglyphic, burned by Landa, 468 
Marin Cristébal, 545 
Martinez y Hernandez, Juan, 468, 479 
Matting, 3 
Maudslay, Alfred P., 21, 23, 147, 187 
Error, noted, 324, 341, 349 
Nomenclature of monuments, 537 
Visits to and work at Copan, 21, 24 537 
Maya and Julian periods, correspondence of, 48 
Maya Calendar, basic unit the day, 48 
Maya chronicles, editions, 32 
Maya chronology, starting point of, 34 
Maya civilization, a native American product, 28 
Hypotheses on origin of, 28, 402, et seq. 
Maya codices, contents of, 43 
Maya dates, equivalents in Christian chronology, 49 
Method of transcription, 47 
Maya inscriptions, history in, 44 
Maya, linguistic relation to Cholti, 611 
To Quiché-Pokom, 611 
Maya New Year, 516 
On July 16, 0. s., 484 
Mayapan, Stela 9, 574 
Compared with page 11, Codex Peresianus, 575 
Stelz at, mentioned by Landa, 577 
Mayanee, linguistic stocks, 605 
Manuscripts, importance of, 613 
Tongues, consonant mutations among, 610 
Use of term, 605 
Means, Philip, studies on Peruvian chronology, 34 
Mecco, El, 520 : 
Meléndez, Luis, 545 
Membrefo, Alberto, Chorti vocabulary, 607 
Menché Tinamit, 23 
Mendoza Codex, 36, 38, 41 
Mercer, excavation of caves of Yucatan, 438 
On occupation of Yucatan, 532 
Mérida, act of incorporation, 488 
Foundation, 488 
Mexican objects in other localities, 34 
Meye, visit to Copan, 21 
Mezquita, Martin de la, 544 
Migration of the Maya, eastern, via Bakhalal to Chichen 
Itza, 458 
Probable line of, 404 
Trend of early, 414 
Migration lines followed by Nahua, 444 
Moctezuma IJ, death of, 37 
Mohammedan lunar calendar, parallel with Maya Supple- 
mentary series, 554 
Molina Solis, J. F., 44, 491, 526 
Mongolian cultural connection unsupported, 22. 
Monjarras, Fernando de, 548 
Monkey, 5 
Montejo and Lord of Mani, 480 
Montejo’s entries into Yucatan, dates of, 488 
Month-coefficients, shift of, 512, 513, 515 
Cause, 521 
In Books of Chilan Balam, 513 
In Dresden, Peresianus, Tro-Cortesianus Codices, 513 
In New Empire, 513 
In Old Empire, 513 
Probable date, 514, 520 
Month-sign in terminal date replaced by unusual glyph, 138 


638 


Month-sign indicator at Yaxchilan, Stela 1, Stela 11, Lintel 
_ 29, 138 
Month-signs at Copan, list of all, table, 589, et seq. 
Monuments, classification of, 50 
Majority of, belong to Great Period, 220 
Method of designating, 50 
Method of treatment, 46, 49 
Periodicity of, 565 
Quartz inclusions in stone of, 1, 2, 563, 564 
Recent destruction of, 51 
Sudden cessation of, at cultural zenith, 442 
Monumental types, chronological sequence of, 394, 395 
Moon-glyph, 152 
And God D, 153 
In Dresden Codex, 554 
In Supplementary Series, 554 
Mopanes, spoke Itza and not Cholti, 609 
MorAn, Francisco, enters Lacandon and Chol territory, 608 
His manuscript, 608 
Manuscript given by Mariano Galvez to Amer. Philos. 
Soc. in Philadelphia, 609 
Morley, R. K., 551, 555 
Glyph C, 551, 561 
Glyphs D and E, 562 
On Supplementary Series, 563 
Morris, Earl, 27 
Motul Maya Dictionary, manuscript, 16 
Multiplication and addition, different positions of numeral 
modifier in, 312 
Municipality of Copan (organized 1893), 86 
Mufioz calls attention to Copan, 15 
Murga, Alonso de, 545 
Nachan, or Palenque, 615 
Nahua influence, 15, 16, 521 
Date of first, 502 
Lines of migrations followed by, 15, 444 
Period at Chichen Itza, 500-~ 
Year-bearers, 521 
Nahuan customs, effect on calendar, 480 
Nakuk Pech, see Pech, Nakuk 
Nakum, 433, 437, 441, 444, 458, 459 
Abandonment of, 457 
Sculptured and unsculptured monuments, 439 
Nakum Monuments: 
Stela C, 333, 570, 586 
Stela D, 451, 528, 570, 586 
Stela U, 570, 585 
Nanché, 3 
Naranjo, 220, 391, 433, 441, 444, 459, 589 
Abandonment of, 457 
Important date at, 579. 
Supplementary Series Glyph E at, 562 
Naranjo Monuments: 
Hieroglyphic Stairway, 281, 389, 554, 570, 583 
Stela 6, 580 
Stela 7, 333, 570, 586 
Stela 8, 392, 559» 560, 570, 585 
Stela 10, 333, 570, 586 
Stela 12, 392, 566, 570, 585 
Stela 13, 278, 559, 560, 566, 570, 585 
Stela 14, 135, 570, 585 
Stela 15, 278 
Stela 18, 570, 584 
Stela 19, 570, 585 
Stela 21, 570, 584 
Stela 22, 566, 584 
Stela 23, 151, 584 
Stela 24, 399, 400, 559, 560, 561, 566, 584 
Stela 28, 392, 585 





INDEX. 


Naranjo Monuments—Continued. 
Stela 29, 151, 559, 560, 561 
Stela 31, 566, 584 
Stela 32, 451, 570, 586 
Structure 16, 220 
Temple 17, 579 
Natural phenomena in Aztec Codices, 40 
Nephrite heads, found under Stela 3, 155 
New and Old Empire Periods, classification of, 505 
New Empire, Colonization period 458 
New Empire month coefficients, 513 
New Year ceremonies in Yucatan, 222 
New Year Days, 304, 306 
Less important than last day of year, 397 
Perhaps referred to on Altar U, 304 
Nieto, Gonzalo, in Yucatan, 490 
Nomenclature of monuments, 537 
Non-Maya archeological remains, complete absence of, 
in Old Empire region, 445 
Nonohual, 498, 501, 502 
Nueve Cerros, 609 
N 
N 





Yumbers, and deities, relationships, 558 
Yumeral ornaments, omission of, 64 
Modifiers, different positions for multiplication and 
addition, 312 
Numerals, composite, 136, 166 
Examples of, 166-169 
Form for 17, 169 
Ornamental fillers with, 59, 64 
Lack of, a sign of archaism, 59 
13 to 19, characteristics of, 172 
Nusbaun, J. L., 27 
Obsidian lances, 545 
Occupation of Old Empire Cities, periods of, 433 
Length of, at Copan, 436 
Longest at Uaxactun, 436 
Ocelot, 5 
Ocosingo, 391, 441, 459 
An Old Empire capital, 615 
Old and New Empire Periods, classification, 505 
Old Chichen Itza, description, 123 
Lintel discovered by Thompson at, 500 
Old Copan, 123 
Old Empire area, important sections yet to be explored, 439 
Cities, classification of, 440, et seq. 
Cities, other than Copan, 433 
Civilization, migration of, 578 
Month coefficients, 513 
Region reoccupied about 1447 A. D. after fall of New 
Empire, 461 
Old Maya Empire, divisions of, 46 
Fal of, 442 
Oldest monument in Maya area, 412 
Openings bored in Stela 3 in introducing glyph, 156 
Orantes tablet, 281 
Ordofiez y Aguiar, Canon, his work on Votanide traditions 
and early Empire, 613, 614 
Ordonez de Villaquiran, Diego, 608, 609 
Ordufa, Visitador, 17 
Origin of Maya civilization, 402 
Probably about 1000 B. ¢c., 411 
Probably between the Rio Panuco and the Rio 
Grijalva, 407 
Osuna, Juan Vasquez de, 545 ~ 
Otzmal, place of Napot Xiu’s death, 481 
Oxkintok, caves at, 438 
Oxkutzcab Chronicle, 470 
Page 66 probably copied from hieroglyphic codex, 472 
Text, translation, and notes, 507, et seq. (also see Xiu) 





INDEX. 


Owens, John G., death and burial, 25 
Work at Copan, 24 
Pabellon, El (see El Pabellén) 
Pacific Guatemalan slope, non-occupation of by early 
Maya, 615 
Padilla, Mariano, digested copy of Fuentes y Guzman, 
photographed by Gates, 543 
Palacio, report on Copan, 541 
Editions, 15, 541 
On local dialects, 605 
Quoted, 15 
Palenque, 391, 433, 437) 441 
Abandonment of, 456 
Chronological and art criteria apparently contra- 
dictory at, 437 
Initial Series at, 100 
Katun-ending records at, 184 
Goodman on date of, 530 
Spinden on date of, 437 
Subject of figures at, 443 
Palenque Monuments: 
House C, 220, 389, 583 
House C, Stairway, 150 
Palace Group, 99, 515, 570 
Slab, 583 
Temple of the Cross, 150, 166, 167, 168, 386, 570, 579, 
583 
Calculation, 98 
Error in month-sign on, 332 
Stela of, 583 
Temple of the Cross, Foliated Cross, and Sun, 282 
Temple of the Foliated Cross, 167, 570, 579, 583, 589 
Temple of Inscriptions, 237, 281, 346, 347, 358, 376, 
566, 570, 579, 582, 583, 589 
Temple of the Sun, 153, 570, 583 
Palm, 3 
Palm nuts, 3 
Pan, Nahuatl suffix, 15 
Papaya, 3 
Paraiso, 6, 381, 431 
Pataxte, 3 
Paved plaza floors in vertical section of Acropolis, 211 
Payaqui, 605, 607 
Peabody Museum of American Archeology, work of, 24 
Nomenclature of monuments, 537 
Photographs, 52 
Publications, 25 
Work at Copan, 537 
Peccary, 4 
Peccary skull, engraved, 379 
Now in Peabody Museum, 379 
Peccorini, Atilio, Chorti word-list from Copan, 607 
Pech, Ah Naum, chronicle found by Martinez Hernandez, 
468. 
Pech Nakuk, 578 
His chronicle, 468 
His position, 468 
Quoted, 475, 476, 498, 576 
Penck on climatic conditions, 450 
Peresianus Codex, 578 
Compared with Mayapan stela, 575 
Probably ceremonial! rather than historical, 576 
Year-bearers on pages 19 and 20 of, 517 
Pérez, Juan Pio, on chronology, 525 
On katun dates, 495 
Period-ending date, at Loltun Cave, 573 
On Chichen Itza lintel, 500 
Period-ending dating, 466 
Superseded Initial Series, 392 
Period-endings, predominant in records, 191 








639 


Stele to commemorate, first a Copan practice, 420 
Period-glyphs, specialization in, 83 
Period-markers, practice of erecting, when introduced, 396 
Stela used as, for 13 centuries, 391 
Period of greatest development, 396 
Periods, different, limits of, 53, 54 
Division in Early, Middle, and Great necessary accord- 
ing to Morley, 54 
Periods of Old and New Empire, classification, 505 
Periodicity of monuments, 565 
Bowditch on, 565 
Seler on, 565 
Periodicity of recorded dates in Early Period, 125 
Perry, E. W., concession at Copan, 24 
Peten region abandoned after close of Old Empire, 444 
Entirely deserted for over 800 years, 444 
Peten Itza, Itza migrate to, 487 
Petrographic description of Copan monuments, 463 
Phonology of different Mayance branches, 613 
Photographic record of Copan, 25 
Piedras Negras, 220, 391, 433, 471 
Abandonment of, 457 
Important dates at, 579 
Latest southwestern date found at, 438 
Subject of figures at, 444 
Supplementary Series at, 551 
Piedras Negras, Monuments: 
Altar 1’, 150, 227, 228, 229, 584 
Altar 2’, 282, 584 
Lintel 2, 45, 166, 444, 565, 583 
Stela 1, 156, 400, 401, 559, 560, 584, 586, 589 
Stela 2, 583 
Stela 3, 156, 228, 399, 400, 401, 559, 560, 584 
Stela 4, 227, 228, 566, 584 
Stela 5, 400, 584 
Stela 6, 565, 583 
Stela 7, 227, 228, 584 
Stela 8, 583 
Stela 9, 565, 584 
Stela 10, 152, 579, 584 
Stela 11, 228, 584 
Stela 12, 45, 392, 438, 444, 565, 569, 585 
Stela 13, 585 
Stela 14, 585 
Stela 16, 135, 565, 585 
Stela 22, 565, 584 
Stela 25, 111, 398, 399, 565, 567, 569, 583 
Stela 29, 436, 582 
Stela 31, 583 
Stela 35, 583 
Stela 36, 227, 565, 583 
Stela 37, 583 
Piedra Pintada, 13 
Pigeons, 5 
Pineapple, 3 
Pine-tree country, Sapper on early Maya habitat, 405 
Planetary motions, 35 
Playa Carmen, 520 
Polanco, Gaspar de, 544 
Ponce, quoted, 42 
“Pop counted in order,” 519 
Popenoe, Useful Plants of Copan, cited, 4 
Popol Vuh, 461, 607, 614 
Porvenir, 458 
Pre-Maya sculptures under Altars X and Y, 208 
Probanza de Votan, 613 
Profile portrayal of principal figure, at Copan and else- 
where, 151 
“Prophetic” dates, 27, 197, 198, 333, 342 
Provenance of Copan monuments, table, 587, et seq. 


640 


Puchutla, 608 
Pueblo Bonito, 34 
Putnam, Frederic W., work of, 24 
Putun, defined, 610 
Quarries, 6 
Quartz inclusions in monuments, 463 
Quirigua, 6, 391, 433, 437, 441 
Abandonment of, 457 
Colonization of, 428 
Earliest date at, 272, 435 
Excavation, 27 
Hotun-markers of, 214 
Important dates at, 329, 344, 579 
Katun-ending records at, 184 
Probable foundation of, 272 
Subject of figures at, 443 
Supplementary Series at, 551 
Tonalamatl, 334 
Quirigua, Monuments: 
Altar L, 334, 571 
Altar M, 571, 584 
Altar N, 571 
Altar Q, 334, 571 
Altar R, 334, 571 
Hieroglyphic cornice, 387 
Stela A, 571, 585 
Stela C, 150, 273, 282, 528, 565, 571, 585, 589 
Stela D, 156, 181, 231, 259, 320, 4O1, 565, 585 
Stela FE, 156, 181, 227, 258, 273, 287, 301, 386, 397, 399, 
400, 401, 559, 579; 584, 585 
Stela F, 258, 273, 555s 559, 560, 561, 566, 579, 584 
Stela H, 194, 565, 584 
Stela I, 312, 554, 559, 560, 565, 585 
Stela J, 258, 273, 559, 560, 579, 584 
Stela K, 312, 554, 565, 586 
Stela S, 214, 571, 584 
Structure I, 214, 220, 259, 276, 312, 389, 392, 554, 571, 
579, 586 
Zoémorph B, 214, 231, 386, 559, 560, 579, 585 
Zoémorph G, 214, 227, 228, 258, 273, 320, 565, 585, 586 
Zodmorph O, 214, 559, 585 
Zoomorph P, 214, 585 
Quebrada Seca, 13 
Quelen, defined, 610 
Quen Santo, stela, same date as Chichen Itza lintel, 459 
Stela 1, 580, 586 
Stela 2, 249, 527, 528, 572, 580, 586 
Quetzalcoatl, 502 
Quiahuitl, Ninth Lord of the Night, 559 
Quinteros, Miguel, 544, 545 
Rainfall, its effect on growth and decay of civilization, 448 
Rainfall figures, 2 
Rainy season, 2 
Ramonal, 458 
Range of inscriptions at Copan, 335 years, 391 
Recent destruction of monuments at Copan, 93 
Recovery of fragments, 164 
Red paint on monuments, 83, 96, 105, 132, 141, 346, 376 
Religious center of first settlement, 418 
Religious ceremonies during Great Period, probable effect 
of food crisis on, 456 
Removals of monuments from other localities, 194 
From Group 9 to Great Plaza, 419 
In early times, 211 
Representations, general character of not warlike, 443 
Reverse direction of reading glyphs, right to left, g125 354; 
322 
Rio Amarillo, 381, 431, 441 
Altars 1 and 2, discussion, 382 





INDEX. 


Rio Beque, 458 
Rio Chixoy, 459 
Rio Graciosa, referred to by Seler, 528 
Rio Grande, 441 
Rio Lacantun, 459 
Rio Pasion, 438, 459 
Rio Sesesmil, 123 
River course, 7 
River washing, 7 
Rocks, 1 
Rock material of Copan monuments described, 463 
Rope pattern, 57, 59 
Round altar, first found, 396 
Rosny, de, katun correlation, 526 
Ruano Suarez, Chorti vocabulary, 607 
Rubber, 4 
Rulers of Copan, their character, 423 
Sabaka, caves at, 438 
Sacchana, stelx, 459 
Sacred fire, renewal of, in Aztec Codices, 41 
Salto de Agua Chol word-list, 610 
San Diego Museum, 52 
San José de Motul, 441 
San Juan Ermita, founded by refugees from Copan, 603 
Santa Cruz Quiché, archaic sculpture at, 209 
Santa Rita, 6, 13 
Santiago, José de, 548 
Saville, Marshall H., work at Copan, 24 
Sapper, on correlation of chronology, 526 
On early habitat of Maya, 405, 406 
Scherzer, Carl, 21 
Scope of present investigation, 33 
Sculptured. monuments not always a criterion of length of 
occupation, 439 > 
Secondary Series, contemporary date on later monuments, 


399 
Developed for brevity, 392 
Numbers counted backward, 162 
Order of, 264 
Term defined, 46 
Secondary usage of monuments, 55, 82, 92, 96, 122, 123, 
124, 125, 341 
Examples of, 82 
Of Early Period monuments, list of instances, 418 
Possible reason therefor, 82 
Seibal, 220, 433, 438, 441, 444, 458, 459 
bandonment of, 457 
Seibal Monuments: 
Hieroglyphic step, 389, 571, 584 
Stela 1, 458, 528, 571, 586 
Stela 5, 220 
Stela 6, 220/571, 585° 
Stela 7, 220, 566, 571, 585 
Stela 8, 528, 571, 586 
Stela 9, 528, 571, 586 
Stela 10, 528, 571, 586 
Stela 11, 228, 528, 571, 586 
Stela 12, 571, 585 
Stelz 2, 3, 4, 5, not deciphered, 571 
Seler, Eduard, on correlation of chronology, 528 
Periodicity of monuments, 565 
Quoted, 114, 116, 285, 408 
Strong Mexican bias in‘his Maya studies, 52 
Studies on inscriptions, 31 
Works, 31 
Separation of monuments of the three periods, 54 
Sequence of archaic stela, 125 
Series of 18 Tuns, on Stela J at Copan, 201 
Serpent-head decoration on earliest five altars, 62 





INDEX. 


Sesesmil River, 14 
Settlement at Copan probably not long before g.0.0.0.0., 
416 
Site, history of, 14 
Of ruins not that of city conquered by Chaves, 18, 23 
Skeletal characteristics, 81 
Smith, Elliott, quoted, 224 
Sotuta, last Cocom capital, 487 
Southwestern Maya field, latest date in, 438 
Southwestern United States, Mexican objects in, 34 
Speech scroll, emblem of, royalty in Aztec codices, 38 
Sphere of Copan influence, 6, 381-386, 431 
Spinden, H. J., on correlation of chronology, 531, et seq. 
On date of Palenque, 437 
On extravagance in art and cultural decay, 447 
On Stela 15, 87 
On Stela 18, 97 
On Totonacan art, 4c9 
Provisional chronologies, 34 
Publications, 26 
Quoted, 45, 53, 130, 141, 208, 226, 229, 326, 358 
Reliability of his stylistic criteria, 358 
Work on Maya art, 26 
Squash, 3 
Squier, E. G., on distribution of Chorti language, 607 
Stairways, hieroglyphic, at different places, 389 
Stela, as time-markers, 51, 127 
Intervals of erection, 51 
Method of transport, 397 
Removal of during occupation, 115 
Sequence of archaic, 125 
So used for 13 centuries, 591 
36 now known at Copan, i11 
Steps, Hieroglyphic, at other localities, 220 
Stephens, John L., error in Chorti word list from Zacapa, 
605, 606 
Mission to Central America, and works, 20 
On location of monuments, 539 
On quarries, 6 
Quoted, 224, 239, 473 
Stiles, Charles Wardell, on malaria, 446 
Stoll, Cholti and Chorti vocabularies, 610 
Ethnographie, cited, 608 
Prints Stephens’s erroneous “ Chorti”’ word-list, 607 
Stone of monuments, I 
Character of, 6, 463 
Stone carving, development of, 393 
Style, archaic, similar to that of Tikal, 54 
Style interchange with northern sites (on Stela 23), 151 
Stylistic criteria, 26 
Stylistic sequence, 53 
Apparent conflict with chronological, 354, et seq. 
Stylistic similarity of the seven 9.11.0.0.0 stela, 160 
Supplementary Series, 46 
Always preceded by an Initial Series, 74, 401 
Analyzed, 401 
Bowditch on, 551 
Description, 551 
Detailed analysis of glyphs, 552 
Discussion, 551 
Eclipse phenomena, 401 
Goodman on, 551 
Glyph A, 554 
Lunar-month sign, 554 
Glyph C, description, 555 
Probable explanation, 561 
Glyph D, description, 561 
Relation to glyph E, 562 
R. K. Morley on, 562 








641 


Supplementary Series—Continued. 
Glyph E, analysis, 562 
At Naranjo, 562 
At Yaxchilan, 562 
Glyph X, description and analysis, 562, 563 
Possibly refers to phases of moon, 563 
Similarity to God C, 563 
Summary of conclusions, 563 
Parallels with Mohammedan and Babylonian lunar 
calendars, 554 
Pairs, head elements in Glyph C, 559, 560 
Term defined, 46 
Swanton, 409 
Sweet potato, 3 
Symbolism of 20 figures, 335 
Symmetry considerations, 322 
Syntactic parallels between Chorti, Maya, and Quiché- 
Pokom, 612 
Tap, 4 
Tassel ornaments, 69, 70, 83 
Tayasal, visited by Fuensalida, 473 
Tecuantepec, conquest of, in Aztec codices, 38 
Telleriano-Remensis Codex, 38, 39, 41 
Tenochtitlan, fall of, 468, 534 
Tepechpan, Mapa de, 36, 41 
Tepeyollotli, Eighth Lord of the Night, 559 
Terminal date, month-sign suppression in, 157 
Ternaux-Compans, quoted, 519 
Testera, Padre, entry in Yucatan, 490 
Tezulutlan, seat of Old Empire, 614 
Tezulutleca, possible name for Old Empire language, 614, 
615 
Thatch palm, 3 
Thomas, Cyrus, commentary on Goodman’s work, 31 
Thomas and Swanton, error in, 608 
Thompson, E. H., 500 
Tibulca Cave, 548, 600 
Tibulén, Cocom driven to, 487 
Tikal, 220, 391, 433, 437» 441, 4445 458, 459 
Abandonment of, 457 
And Uaxactun, practically one locality, 414 (see also 
Uaxactun) 
Archaic style at, 54 
Archaisms at, 76 
New Year Day perhaps referred to on lintels, 304 
Similar archaisms on Leyden plate, 76 
Stone stelz at, long before settlement of Copan, 417 
Subject of figures at, 443 
17 sculptured stelz at, 413 
51 plain stele at, probably painted, hotun-markers, 568 
Tikal Monuments: 
Altar 5, 135 
Palace of five stories, 584 
Stela 1, 414 
Stela 2, 414 
Stela 3, 76, 77, 83, 358, 380, 411, 412, 413, 414, 420, 441 
Stela 4, 393, 4145 434 
Stela 5, 76 
Stela 6, 76 
Stela 7, 393, 414, 434 
Stela 8, 76, 392, 393, 396, 398, 414, 420, 421, 434, 567, 
568, 582 
Stela 9, 392, 414, 420, 421, 434, 568, 582 
Stela 10, 34, 76, 190, 191, 249, 281, 282, 283, 288, 346, 
347 3495 351, 356, 376, 411, 420, 529 
Stela 11, 76, 392, 413, 458, 528, 568, 586 
Stela 13, 393, 414 
Stela 16, 76, 413, 568, 584 


642 INDEX. 


Tikal Monuments—Continued. 
Stela 17, 156, 401, 411, 412, 413, 420 
Structure 10, 566 
Temple I, 566, 584 
Temple ITI, 566, 584 
51 plain stelz at, 568 
Tikoch, new Chel capital, 487 
Time concept of Maya, 282 
Time-count, Maya method, 48 
Accuracy of, 34 
Predominance of in inscriptions, 33 
Time counts, conflict of, 522 
Time element in adjoining cultures, 34 
Time periods, higher than cycle, 281 
Tixhualatun, place of archives, 577 
Tizimin manuscript, 436, 457, 470, 519 
Tlahtouani, 37 
Toad, Shrine of, 378 
Tobacco, 3 
Tonalamatl, 222 
Important instance, 334 
‘** Occurrence in inscriptions, 182 
On Stela 3, 158 
Prominence of on stela (C, F, H, 4), 351, 364 
Tool-work on Stela 3, delicacy of, 159 
Tools: metal, basalt, diorite, flint, 5 
Toral, Bishop, arrival of, 29, 489 
Torches, 4 
Teena possible Maya affinities of, 403, et seq. 
Totonacan art, showing strong strain of Maya feeling, 499 
Towns and katuns, association of, 484 
Tozzer, A. M., 25 
Work at Harvard, 33 
Traditions at Copan, 542 
Tretheway, A. J., drawings, 32 
Trees, clearance of, 2 
Tro-Cortesianus Codex, deer-hunts in, 4 
Only Calendar-Round date in, 519 
Probably from Tuluum region, 520 
Similarity to figures at Tuluum, 519 
Year-bearers, 517, 518 
Tropical vegetation alone responsible for general destruc- 
tion of monuments, 520 
Truncated-cone altar, 377 
Tulapan, 498, 501 
Tul-ha, or Ocosingo, 615 
Tuluum, 391, 567 
Figures at, similar to those in Tro-Cortesianus, 519 
Stela 1, 393, 512, 531, 572, 573, 580, 582, 586 
Style of architecture, 519 
Wall paintings at, copied by Gann, 519 
Tun-sign, 83 
Synonymity with Winged Cauac, 153, 380, 573 
Unusual form, 153 
Used as zero coefhcient, 99, 101 
Tun coefficient, unusual, 165 
Tun 13, importance of, 358 
Tuns, series of 18 on Stela J, 201 
Tutul Xiu (see Xiu) 
Tuxtla Statuette, 77, 209, 391, 393, 412, 416, 420, 500, 501, 
515, 567 
Archaisms on, 76 
Provenance and description, 403 
Twenty figures, possible symbolism of, 335 
Tzalac, San Lucas, del Chol, 608, 609 
Thrice established, 609 
Tzec, forms for, 75 
Tzendales, 433, 4375 441, 459 
Temple of the tablet, 572, 583 


Tzental-Tzotzil family, Cholti a branch of, 611 
Tzuc, defined, 477 
Uaxactun, 391, 433, 441, 444, 458, 459 
Abandonment of, 457 
And Leyden Plate show same archaisms, 76 
And Tikal, practically one locality, we 
Early monuments at, 412 
Occupied for 541 years, 436 
Oldest city known, 436 
Reason for name, 412 
Stone stelz at, long before settlement of Copan, 417 
Supplementary Series at, 551 
Uaxactun Monuments: 
Stela 1, 571, 574 
Stela 2, 571, 584 
Stela 3, 76, 358, 411, 412, 420, 571 
Stela 4, 571 
Stela 5, 76, 412, 413, 414, 420, 567, 571 
Stela 6, 312, 412, 571 
Stela 7, 571, 586 
Stela 8, 412, 571 
Stela 9, 76, 77; 393, 411, 412, 416, 420, 441, 500, 501, 
568, 571 
Stela 10, 571 
Stela 11, 571 
Uayeb-sign not found at Copan, only three times else- 
where, 589 
Landa on Uayeb days, 590 
Uayeb and God N, 558 
Ucanal, 433, 438, 441, 444, 458 
Abandonment of, 457 
Stela 3, 435, 528, 572, 586 
Uinal forms, 232 
Uinal-sign, 83 
U kahlay katunob, or record of the katuns, 43, et seq. 
Contradictions in probable explanation of, 512 
Similarity to Aztec annals, 44 
Ulloa, Andres de, 544 
Underhill, G., 27 
Unexplored sections of Old Empire area, 439 
Uo, forms for, 66 
Relation to uinal, 232 
Uups katun, or katun circuit, 483 
Uxmal, Ball Court ring, 511, 512 
Description, 515 
Monjas Quadrangle, 466, 511, 512, 514, 519, 522 
Uyajal, 542 
Valdivia, 476 
Valentini, on katuns, 526 
Closeness to Morley’s results, 526 
Vandalism, 93, 292 
Vanilla, 3 
Vaticanus Codex, 37, 38, 39, 41 
Vegetation, I 
Venus-sign, 150 
For Lamat, 203, 237, 243 
For Lamat, possible connections, 150, 265 
In introducing glyph, 185 
On Temple 214, 319 
Venus years, 182 
And Lamat, 182 
Vera Paz, 542 . 
Vierra, Carlos, painting by, oe, 
Villaguiterre Sotomayor, Conquest of Itzas, 43, 472, 473, 492 
Voleanic activity, I 
Eruptions shown in Aztec Codices, 39 
Rocks in earth below Stela 7, 105 
Votanide traditions, 613 
“Votanide”’ Empire, four divisions of, 615 





INDEX. 


643 


Warlike subjects, entirely absent on stele and altars at | Yaxchilan Monuments—Continued. 


Copan, 219 
Rare occurrence of, elsewhere in Old Empire, 443, 445 
Weight of stele, 397 
Willoughby, C. C., 25 
Willson, R. W., 465, 551, 554, 558 
Winged-Cauac tun sign, 573 (see also Tun) 
Writing, decipherment of, 28 
Wright, Fred. E., on material of Copan monuments, 463 
Xcanchakan, Mayapan stela at, 574 
Xihuitlmolpia, or 52 year cycle among Aztec, 41. 
Xiu Chronicle (see Oxkutzcab.) 
Xiu count, different from Itza, 512 
Changed after fall of Mayapan, 523 
In western Yucatan lost Old Empire count under 
Nahua influence, 523 
Xiu genealogical tree in Oxkutzcab Chronicle, 485 
Genealogy, 22 generations from 1397 to 1914,A.D., 470 
Xiu, Juan, quoted, 471 
Errors by, 522 
Probable origin of, 522 
Xiu, Napot, Bowditch on, 529 
Classification of data on, 493, 494 
Death of, 478 
Résumé, 487 
Summary of evidence, 485 
Xiu, Tutul, 445 
At Uxmal, 487 
Xiuhtecutli, First Lord of the Night, 559 
Xiuhtzontli, turquoise-studded Aztec crown, 37 
Xupa, 441 
Yax, forms for, 66 
Yaxchilan, 23, 220, 433, 437) 447 
Abandonment of, 457 
Important date at, 579 
Subject of figures at, 443 
Supplementary Series at, 551 
Glyph E in, 562 
Yaxchilan Monuments: 
Altar (near Stela 1), 392, 399 
Altar 9, 565 
Altar (near Structure 39), 584 
Lintel in Berlin Museum, 168 
Lintel 3, 565, 570, 584 
Lintel 9, 100, 516 
Lintel 21, 168 
Lintel 29, 168 
Lintel 31, 570, 585 
Lintel 32, 151 
Lintel 33, 135 





Lintel 42, 151 
Lintel 43, 135 
Lintel 46, 151 
Stairway (on Structure 6), 389 
Stela 1, 559, 560, 561, 570, 585 
Stela 6, 166 
Stela 11, 151, 156, 242, 401, 559, 560, 580 
Stela 12, 203 
Stela 19, 151 
Stela 20, 5, 151 
Structure 5, 220 
Yaxha, 391, 433, 437, 441 
Only one stela deciphered, 571 
Stela 6, 435, 571, 583 
Yaxkin, first day of, as New Year’s Day, 101 
Year, beginning of, 134 
Year-bearers, 478, 515, et seq. 
In Codices Dresdensis and Peresianus, 516, 518 
In Codex Tro-Cortesianus, 517, 518 
In New Empire, 516 
In Old Empire, 516 
Nahua, 521 
Yucatan, colonization of, 459 
Consequences of civil war in, 445 
Discovery of, 457 
Early entries of fathers, 490 
East coast ruins, type of, 520 
Immigration from Tabasco in roth century, according 
to Landa, 459 
Zac, forms for, 66 
Zapata, Munoz, of Oxkutzcab, 488 
Zapote, 3 
Zaragoza, Springs of, 546 
Zero element, coefficient signs, 101 
Fleshless lower jaw, sign for, 159 
Month coefficient, an unusual form for, 99, 100 
Position in Maya months, 64 
Unusual form, 137 
Zilan, stelz at, mentioned by Landa, 577 
Stelze found by Morley, 577 
Zip, forms for, 66, 67 
Special form at Copan in decade following 9. 16.10.0.0, 
67 
Unusual variant, 290 
Variant for, 280 
Ziyancaan, 457 
Location of, 458 
Zuiva, 501, 562 











‘ 











1 Phi ta ple 
tiniest oe 








































oa i r i 
Nita heity (| i i 
ie - arn , 1d . 
2 balthsynne Ueda nats #4 jo 
ow iannuiNe " er tk Heenet nays 
seein sr So eur 


bury 4 ar 





by 
PDS Me het 
i Wah Aaiy 





\ 


USER ceo Na USCC HINO ERta Ete Cy StH enter a Ata MO VERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
bt " {ides il i Dita 


rananas bet pen Wate e eta Fa aN f h , > 
Tri) a i h , 1 eb eee ge a} ' 
} nh 4 ae aihad oa bidetohetsy ct 


3 0112 046437239 


























Ha Wee men 
ba Dons Ub) 


roti 


ih eh 













0) ae nul 














Dy 
Tay eis FA ye 
tie Wt a li 
ie mt tH 


n ta 
i ings anes hey 
ea je ity i 
Wh 
e i 
i Wed 










i Ra ib 
a salah 
setae Silt 


in Rue 


oun nt 














aeaee it 
” Gilt ius 





ay the 
MAN 
oH Lit tba mt| 
SN 


ne ee me 




















ea 
SU vine 


Aa 


A ns 
vii i 
Baia 





uN f 
Sil M ihe earned 


He 









WM 
Wat 


ene 
i 


‘i 
pinky egies 
Age y 






«Mite de 


“ or 


, ea 
rm sd 
ae uit sa 































































































































































































































































































































































































i 
isi 
phish 1 
ehlspe ; 
init Nida mi ta i 
sa ‘i 
ia Haiti ne i Vi 
TUS ERRATIC ein re 
ta wean vay batt it ie Hh Ws 
na ite: jes mh 
tov sei i 
RT fi 
hee task “i 3 Keb f 
Ay Ay haiti Te nis 
a i hb Ph : Z 
ie vie! wal i { A 
heh yan a 
ait iia AA ’ 
AE f ae ‘ket WO As 6 : , 
ur y ‘ 
‘ie iy AN, Hosea ta: patel A 
rene cat Ag its 2 tlh iin i . 
Me i \ Hine h é 
ivi Hint a | Whe) Pe, ' 
i Whadehiehte itu? ( ft 
a 
ts i] i ai 
Wi} ’ 
ei ‘ se 4) 
ht Hes ih 4 Ue tiny he iy 
SW fate fy i 
; 
‘vite 
ne f t 
ibe Hed abe Mae Tei te Pei i 
siatcat Vite] asia 
fa elaine Tei Rahiea! ity ek 
ie ite rash a4 } 
vi Hh 1} BTEings 
: Both ‘i ; 
whet Led yell f 
ne itt H aa 
MAH He hs bieVienieile ny atta i 
hs ie wa Hd Ay : y ii) “| ay ; 
ai HAL Ny Miah hy eat bit 
eh 
i eA ib belts he 
ed meee hep 4 
Hil te, i 7 ‘ 
Athy Hat pas Mihid } 
Hele brie Hai 
earn Att ‘ais 
hat i! vit ¢ 
A hy Hl 
sy ie Ve + ' j 
Eye te Has 7 ' 
Utter ae it ae V1 eh vi * i=) 
f bie Fein imi Unt ins ; at iatas ; iF HE tee oat CNN + 
niibate Hoy tie U1 it raat AO Ys eh Ket 
che i vite 1 
i DA AME 
eV idle ne pee Mh ' 
Ulin: A ALi) ra, f i 
i iit ie ad i 
h Iohele i é 
iii a wg: a aah Page, thle 
their 9 Mh ih A iy ia] al 7 1 ' as 
MN) Tie siti i : ae ti bi ii aay oti 4 
' f “* 
We 
Vileut , 
aren at MET! ‘ 
Tra ik eG 
ti . 
it “eis . rot sas ag i s ; H 
I Peet Geet basin ; ht 
“nis i { ‘ 
Deve bo oth ¢ 4 A f i 
Waal Ka li Condy are 
} 4 F h 
fae a ; wi i UY A A wi i 
i Wes i y . 4 ray , ‘ 
Ys i eat) Hea S ih wal ‘ zi . iy 
Nes oi Wa 
i hii if Ot be 
mii ve Wry 7, 
sl, Ne Ritgni tes tReet > I cat i Rhy Pe 
ity so 8 iy * 
Me Wy ti WN Teh ‘ | ed 
i) iB 
Lin fnew Hist { ¢ 
ga Wye ar hie Lita ist 1) a tt i \ ; 
‘iatnel: net ve mn ; si be a OG Ly Daa ; 
i boty ptt 9 y 
; _ 
; $ 
Aieg i Lama 4 ' 
Mi as who 
$ 
VE ey erat, | 
iain j : \ 
i Miers re ye aH agit fen) P in : : a i ‘ia 
" ‘ Heh we ; v ina ‘ 
aa patti ae Eee ey ty { j PA PES 
nae aa ily Pa at ie Ace) 
Ata dite eel 
ater gi 
ate Bis 
‘ 
; it yy } ; ‘ . 
$i itdyict 1 Ps oy / HOF i s hy 
i ¢ ” 7 4 
; a i I 4 





